Federal Register Vol. 80, No.72,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 72 (April 15, 2015)

Page Range20149-20406
FR Document

80_FR_72
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 20405 - Pan American Day and Pan American Week, 2015PDF
80 FR 20401 - National Volunteer Week, 2015PDF
80 FR 20298 - Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 20195 - Television Broadcasting Services; Bend, OregonPDF
80 FR 20202 - Notice To Conduct a Public Meeting for Preparation of a Preliminary Assessment and Dredged Material Management Plan for Petaluma River, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, CAPDF
80 FR 20268 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 20245 - Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 20149 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 5PDF
80 FR 20171 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 5PDF
80 FR 20197 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 20261 - Notice of Exemption Involving BNP Paribas, S.A. (BNP or the Applicant); Located in Paris, FrancePDF
80 FR 20244 - Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and ThailandPDF
80 FR 20289 - Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation-Trackage Rights Exemption-Soo Line Railroad CompanyPDF
80 FR 20290 - Soo Line Railroad Company-Trackage Rights Exemption-Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad CorporationPDF
80 FR 20243 - Announcement of USGS National Geospatial Program (NGP) 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) FY15 Public Meetings in Preparation for the Upcoming Release of the USGS Broad Agency Announcement for 3D ElevationPDF
80 FR 20167 - Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR); Source Selection and PaymentsPDF
80 FR 20189 - Addition of 1-Bromopropane; Community Right-To-Know Toxic Chemical Release ReportingPDF
80 FR 20223 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors; RenewalPDF
80 FR 20163 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Piscataqua River, Kittery, MEPDF
80 FR 20163 - Safety Zone, Eastern Branch Elizabeth River; Norfolk, VAPDF
80 FR 20210 - National Assessment Governing Board Quarterly Board MeetingPDF
80 FR 20200 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 20240 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Community Development Block Grant Entitlement ProgramPDF
80 FR 20239 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: CDBG Urban County Qualification/Requalification ProcessPDF
80 FR 20226 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Annual Reporting Requirements for the Older American Act Title VI Grant ProgramPDF
80 FR 20296 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
80 FR 20295 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
80 FR 20297 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1098-MAPDF
80 FR 20295 - Credit for Renewable Electricity Production and Refined Coal Production, and Publication of Inflation Adjustment Factor and Reference Prices for Calendar Year 2015PDF
80 FR 20212 - Cascade Water Alliance: Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 20217 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-552); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
80 FR 20216 - Reliability Technical Conference; Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
80 FR 20197 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 20225 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
80 FR 20211 - Proposed Agency Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 20293 - Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, and Unblocking of One Individual Blocked Pursuant to Executive Order 13382 of June 28, 2005PDF
80 FR 20293 - Proposed Collection of Information: Request by Fiduciary for Distribution of United States Treasury SecuritiesPDF
80 FR 20292 - Proposed Collection of Information: Request for Payment of Federal Benefit by Check, EFT Waiver FormPDF
80 FR 20294 - Supplemental Identification Information for 1 Entity Designated Pursuant to Executive Order 13224PDF
80 FR 20244 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
80 FR 20158 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying BenefitsPDF
80 FR 20229 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Waiver of In Vivo Demonstration of Bioequivalence of Animal Drugs in Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form Products and Type A Medicated ArticlesPDF
80 FR 20209 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; National Household Education Survey 2016 (NHES:2016) Full-Scale Data CollectionPDF
80 FR 20185 - Communication Tower SafetyPDF
80 FR 20289 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Type Certification Procedures for Changed ProductsPDF
80 FR 20211 - Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund-Development Grants; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 20273 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2, Amending Rule 13-Equities and Related Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 20280 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, Amending Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 20203 - Applications for New Awards; Education Research and Special Education Research Grant ProgramsPDF
80 FR 20243 - Notice To Reopen the Public Comment Period and Notice of Additional Public Meetings for the Kachess Drought Relief Pumping Plant and Keechelus Reservoir-to-Kachess Reservoir Conveyance Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Kittitas and Yakima Counties, WashingtonPDF
80 FR 20241 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Status Reviews of Black-Lace Cactus, Bone Cave Harvestman, Pima Pineapple Cactus, Texas Snowbells, and Walker's Manioc in the Southwest RegionPDF
80 FR 20226 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 20233 - Request for Nomination for Industry Representatives and Participation From Industry Organizations on Public Advisory CommitteesPDF
80 FR 20173 - Regulatory Publication and Review Under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996PDF
80 FR 20232 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3397PDF
80 FR 20230 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food and Cosmetic Export Certificate Application ProcessPDF
80 FR 20228 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; AUBAGIO-Patent No. 6,794,410PDF
80 FR 20227 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; AUBAGIO-Patent No. 5,679,709PDF
80 FR 20233 - Joint Workshop on Drug Transporters in Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion: From the Bench to the BedsidePDF
80 FR 20235 - Innovations in Medical Evidence Development and Surveillance-Methods Research AgendaPDF
80 FR 20291 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Interest-Rate-Risk Vendor QuestionnairePDF
80 FR 20290 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Guidance on Stress Testing for Banking Organizations With More than $10 Billion in Total Consolidated AssetsPDF
80 FR 20270 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments RequestPDF
80 FR 20268 - Meetings of Humanities PanelPDF
80 FR 20166 - Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the Southeast Desert Nonattainment Area in CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 20236 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 20239 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Open MeetingPDF
80 FR 20238 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 20269 - Information Collection; Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal FacilitiesPDF
80 FR 20246 - Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction RestrictionsPDF
80 FR 20224 - Filing Dates for the Illinois Special Elections in the 18th Congressional DistrictPDF
80 FR 20201 - Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 20219 - NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Nexus Gas Transmission Project and Texas Eastern Appalachian Lease Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping MeetingsPDF
80 FR 20215 - Inman Mills; Notice of Termination of License (Minor Project) by Implied Surrender and Soliciting Comments, Protests and Motions To IntervenePDF
80 FR 20218 - California Independent System Operator Corporation; Supplemental Notice Concerning Post Technical Conference CommentsPDF
80 FR 20216 - Louisiana Generating LLC; Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 20214 - Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC (Complainant) v. PacifiCorp (Respondent); Notice of Amended ComplaintPDF
80 FR 20216 - North Gooding Main Hydro LLC; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
80 FR 20218 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign Utility Company StatusPDF
80 FR 20213 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 20219 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 20212 - Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 20274 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Period Applicable to the Customer Best Execution Auction per Rule 971.1 NY, Until July 17, 2015PDF
80 FR 20273 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Modifying the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule To Adopt Fees for Certain Manual Transactions in Options Overlying IWMPDF
80 FR 20277 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Modifying the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Adopt Fees for Certain Manual Transactions in Options Overlying IWMPDF
80 FR 20285 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 20282 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Update Public Disclosure of Exchange Usage of Market DataPDF
80 FR 20271 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Facilitate Acceptance of a New Credit Default Swap Index Product SeriesPDF
80 FR 20280 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of an Additional Standard Emerging Market Sovereign Single NamePDF
80 FR 20278 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of Additional Western European Sovereign Single NamesPDF
80 FR 20236 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 20297 - Debt Management Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 20214 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 20159 - Consolidation of Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection for Outer Continental Shelf Activities; Eighth Coast Guard District; Technical, Organizational, and Conforming AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 20237 - List of Environmentally Responsive Human Genes Selected for Use In Screening Large Numbers of Substances Using Toxicogenomic ApproachesPDF
80 FR 20238 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 20345 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program-Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 Through 2017PDF
80 FR 20153 - Regulations Q, Y, and LL: Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement; Capital Adequacy of Board-Regulated Institutions; Bank Holding Companies; Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 20268 - Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, FY 2015PDF
80 FR 20299 - Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Foreign Workers in the Herding or Production of Livestock on the Open Range in the United StatesPDF
80 FR 20222 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
80 FR 20175 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 20178 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 20181 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF

Issue

80 72 Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Contents Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program--Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 through 2017, 20346-20399 2015-08514 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Consolidation of Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection for Outer Continental Shelf Activities: Eighth Coast Guard District; Technical, Organizational, and Conforming Amendments, 20159-20163 2015-08533 Drawbridge Operations: Piscataqua River, Kittery, ME, 20163 2015-08660 Safety Zones: Eastern Branch Elizabeth River, Norfolk, VA, 20163-20166 2015-08659 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20197 2015-08645
Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Reporting Requirements for the Older American Act Title VI Grant Program, 20226-20227 2015-08654 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Publication and Review; Meeting, 20173-20175 2015-08619 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance on Stress Testing for Banking Organizations With More than $10 Billion in Total Consolidated Assets, 20290-20291 2015-08611 Interest-Rate-Risk Vendor Questionnaire, 20291-20292 2015-08612 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20200-20201 2015-08657 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Household Education Survey 2016, 20209-20210 2015-08634 Applications for New Awards: Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs, 20203-20209 2015-08627 Investing in Innovation Fund--Development Grants; Correction, 20211 2015-08631 Meetings: National Assessment Governing Board, 20210-20211 2015-08658 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Exemptions: BNP Paribas, S.A., 20261-20268 2015-08672 Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions, 20246-20261 2015-08565 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration PROPOSED RULES Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Foreign Workers in the Herding or Production of Livestock on the Open Range in the U.S., 20300-20343 2015-08505 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20211-20212 2015-08643
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Meetings: Inland Waterways Users Board, 20201-20202 2015-08561 Preparation of a Preliminary Assessment and Dredged Material Management Plan for Petaluma River, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, CA, 20202-20203 2015-08723 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Acquisition Regulations: Source Selection and Payments, 20167-20170 2015-08665 Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Southeast Desert Nonattainment Area; California, 20166-20167 2015-08582 PROPOSED RULES Community Right to Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Addition of 1-Bromopropane, 20189-20195 2015-08664 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors, 20223-20224 2015-08661 Applications for New Uses; Pesticide Product Registration, 20222-20223 2015-08478 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 20175-20178 2015-08465 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 20181-20185 2015-08463 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 20178-20181 2015-08464 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Type Certification Procedures for Changed Products, 20289 2015-08632 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Television Broadcasting Services: Bend, OR, 20195-20196 2015-08751 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Publication and Review; Meeting, 20173-20175 2015-08619 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Filing Dates for the Illinois Special Elections in the 18th Congressional District, 20224-20225 2015-08564 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Report of Natural Gas Transactions, 20217-20218 2015-08648 Applications: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 20219 2015-08552 Kern River Gas Transmission Co., 20212 2015-08551 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 20213-20214 2015-08553 Combined Filings, 20214-20215 2015-08535 Complaints: Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 20214 2015-08556 Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign Utility Company Status: Old Mill Solar, LLC, et al., 20218 2015-08554 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Nexus Gas Transmission and Texas Eastern Appalachian Lease Project; NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 20219-20222 2015-08560 Filings: Louisiana Generating LLC, 20216 2015-08557 Meetings: California Independent System Operator Corp.; Technical Conferences, 20218 2015-08558 Reliability Technical Conference, 20216 2015-08646 Preliminary Permit Applications: Cascade Water Alliance, 20212-20213 2015-08649 Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facilities: North Gooding Main Hydro LLC, 20216-20217 2015-08555 Termination of Licenses: Inman Mills, 20215-20216 2015-08559 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 20225-20226 2015-08644 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement: Capital Adequacy of Board-Regulated Institutions; Bank Holding Companies; Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 20153-20158 2015-08513 PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Publication and Review; Meeting, 20173-20175 2015-08619 NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 20226 2015-08623 Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Payment of Federal Benefit by Check, EFT Waiver Form, 20292-20293 2015-08640 Request by Fiduciary for Distribution of United States Treasury Securities, 20293 2015-08641 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 5-Year Status Reviews of Black-Lace Cactus, Bone Cave Harvestman, Pima Pineapple Cactus, etc., 20241-20243 2015-08624 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Food and Cosmetic Export Certificate Application Process, 20230-20231 2015-08617 User Fee Cover Sheet, 20232-20233 2015-08618 Waiver of In Vivo Demonstration of Bioequivalence of Animal Drugs in Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form Products and Type A Medicated Articles, 20229-20230 2015-08635 Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension: AUBAGIO--Patent No. 5,679,709, 20227 2015-08615 AUBAGIO--Patent No. 6,794,410, 20228 2015-08616 Funding Availability: Innovations in Medical Evidence Development and Surveillance-Methods Research Agenda, 20235-20236 2015-08613 Meetings: Joint Workshop on Drug Transporters in Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion--From the Bench to the Bedside, 20233 2015-08614 Requests for Nominations: Industry Representatives and Participation from Industry Organizations on Public Advisory Committees, 20233-20235 2015-08620 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 20293-20295 2015-08639 2015-08642 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Meetings: National Geospatial Program 3D Elevation Program, 20243 2015-08668 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20236 2015-08541
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: CDBG Urban County Qualification, Requalification Process, 20239-20240 2015-08655 Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Program, 20240-20241 2015-08656 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Reclamation Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20295-20297 2015-08651 2015-08652 2015-08653 Renewable Electricity and Refined Coal Production Credits, 20295-20296 2015-08650 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China, 20197-20200 2015-08673 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, 20244 2015-08671 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Meetings: Federal Advisory Committee, 20245-20246 2015-08680 Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 20244-20245 2015-08637 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 20268 2015-08607 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES List of Environmentally Responsive Human Genes Selected for Use in Screening Large Numbers of Substances Using Toxicogenomic Approaches, 20237-20238 2015-08529 Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 20236-20237 2015-08572 National Cancer Institute, 20239 2015-08571 National Institute on Aging, 20238 2015-08569 National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders, 20238-20239 2015-08527 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20268-20269 2015-08711 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 5, 20149-20153 2015-08679 PROPOSED RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 5, 20171-20173 2015-08677 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities; Emergency Access, Criteria and Procedures, 20269-20270 2015-08568 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Communication Tower Safety, 20185-20189 2015-08633 NOTICES Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, FY 2015, 20268 2015-08509 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20270-20271 2015-08609 2015-08610 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits, 20158-20159 2015-08636 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Volunteer Week (Proc. 9253), 20401-20404 2015-08828 Pan American Day and Pan American Week (Proc. 9254), 20405-20406 2015-08829 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Kachess Drought Relief Pumping Plant and Keechelus Reservoir-to-Kachess Reservoir Conveyance; Meetings, 20243-20244 2015-08626 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 20285-20289 2015-08546 Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., 20271-20272 2015-08544 ICE Clear Credit LLC, 20278-20282 2015-08542 2015-08543 New York Stock Exchange, LLC; Correction, 20280 2015-08628 NYSE Arca, Inc., 20273-20274 2015-08548 NYSE MKT, LLC, 20273-20278 2015-08629 2015-08547 2015-08549 The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 20282-20285 2015-08545 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Trackage Rights Exemptions: Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad Corp.; Soo Line Railroad Co., 20289-20290 2015-08670 Soo Line Railroad Co.; Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad Corp., 20290 2015-08669 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Fiscal Service

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Meetings: Debt Management Advisory Committee, 20297-20298 2015-08536
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War, 20298 2015-08753 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Labor Department, Employment and Training Administration, 20300-20343 2015-08505 Part III Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 20346-20399 2015-08514 Part IV Presidential Documents, 20401-20406 2015-08828 2015-08829 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

80 72 Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2014-0261] RIN 3150-AJ50 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 5 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1031. Amendment No. 5 makes numerous changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) including adding a new damaged fuel assembly, revising the maximum or minimum enrichments for three fuel assembly designs, adding four-zone preferential loading for pressurized-water reactor fuel assemblies and increasing the maximum dose rates in limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.3.1, and other editorial changes to Appendices A and B of the TSs.

DATES:

The direct final rule is effective June 29, 2015, unless significant adverse comments are received by May 15, 2015. If the direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the Federal Register. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Comments received on this direct final rule will also be considered to be comments on a companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any one of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0261. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, please contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3781; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Procedural Background III. Background IV. Discussion of Changes V. Voluntary Consensus Standards VI. Agreement State Compatibility VII. Plain Writing VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XI. Regulatory Analysis XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality XIII. Congressional Review Act XIV. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0261 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0261.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to: [email protected] For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0261 in the subject line of your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Procedural Background

This direct final rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1031 and does not include other aspects of the MAGNASTOR® System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. This amendment to the rule will become effective on June 29, 2015. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by May 15, 2015, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the Federal Register. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TSs.

For detailed instructions on submitting comments, please see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

III. Background

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), that approved the NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1031.

IV. Discussion of Changes

By letter dated December 19, 2013, and as supplemented on March 19, May 15, and, June 13, 2014, NAC International submitted an application for Amendment No. 5 of CoC No. 1031. The amendment adds a new damaged fuel assembly; revises the maximum or minimum enrichments for three fuel assembly designs; adds four-zone preferential loading for pressurized-water reactor fuel assemblies; and increases the maximum dose rates in LCO 3.3.1.

Amendment No. 5 makes the following specific changes to Appendices A and B of the TSs:

• Page A3-11—Increase the maximum surface gamma dose rate for LCO 3.3.1 from 95 to 120 mrem/hr.

• Page A4-1—Change required minimum actual areal density for 10B from 0.334 g/cm2 to the correct value of 0.0334 g/cm2.

• Page A4-4—Authorize use of the MAGNASTOR® System at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) where the maximum design basis earthquake (DBE) acceleration is greater than previously evaluated provided that the ISFSI pad is designed with bollards that prevents a cask from overturning and bollards are designed, fabricated, and installed such that they are capable of handling the combined loading of the DBE and any contact between the bollard and cask during the DBE.

• Page A4-5—Move the lead paragraph and items a through e to page A4-5.

• Page B2-1—Extend the number of tables specifying fuel characteristics to Table B2-41.

• Pages B2-2 and B2-4—Add specific fuel characteristic tables for WE14×14 fuel assemblies in Tables B2-25 through B2-33 and for CE16×16 fuel assemblies in Tables B2-34 through B2-41; clarify that the assembly average burnup levels are for spent nuclear fuel; and add footnote a.

• Pages B2-2 and B2-5—Delete information on order and location of empty cells for a basket that is not fully loaded and add footnote a.

• Page B2-3—Add footnote a.

• Page B2-7—Increase the maximum decay heat for WE14×14 and CE16×16 fuel assemblies to 1,800 watts and add footnote 2.

• Page B2-9—Add CE16×16 fuel assembly to damaged fuel assembly portion of the table.

• Page B2-10—Revise rod cluster control (RCC) cooling times; add cooling times for fuel hardware for three-zone and four-zone loading patterns; add Tables B2-25 through B2-41 to the note; and add footnotes a, b, and c.

• Pages B2-12 and B2-14—Revise the table (figure) title to indicate more than one decay heat loading pattern definition, add three-zone title, and add four-zone heat load pattern table (figure).

• Pages B2-13 and B2-15—Remove notation showing the canister alignment mark.

• Page B2-16—Remove detail on description of how to block unused cells and indicate that unused cells must be physically blocked.

• Page B2-17—Change item G to state that unirradiated (instead of unenriched) fuel assemblies are not authorized for loading, add item H for the 86 fuel assembly basket configuration, renumber original item H to I, revise item I to indicate alternate loadings for 82 fuel assembly basket, and reference Figure B2-5 in item I.

• Page B2-18—Reduce minimum average enrichment from 1.3 to 0.7 weight percent.

• Page B2-19—Revise footnote 1 to refer to Figure B2-6 instead of B2-5.

• Page B2-20—Add footnotes c and d.

• Page B2-21—Add figure showing the 87 fuel assembly basket.

• Page B2-22—Add alternate configuration for the 82 fuel assembly basket and Increment figure number by 1.

• Page B2-23—Renumber Figure B2-5 to be B2-6.

• Page B2-24—Add row for maximum assembly average burnup of 5,000 MWd/MTU in Table B2-14.

• Pages B2-90 to B2-140—Add tables B2-25 to B2-41, respectively, to include a new pressurized-water reactor preferential loading profile.

The revised TSs are identified in the safety evaluation report (SER). As documented in the SER, the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 5 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences of radiological accidents.

This direct final rule revises the MAGNASTOR® System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 5 to CoC No.1031. The amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the SER.

The amended MAGNASTOR® System design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into MAGNASTOR® Systems that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1031 under 10 CFR 72.212.

V. Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the MAGNASTOR® System design listed in 10 CFR 72.214. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

VI. Agreement State Compatibility

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements using a mechanism consistent with that particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

VII. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact A. The Action

The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1031. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.

B. The Need for the Action

This direct final rule amends the CoC for the NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 5 makes numerous changes to the TSs including adding a new damaged fuel assembly, revising the maximum or minimum enrichments for three fuel assembly designs, adding four-zone preferential loading for pressurized-water reactor fuel assemblies and increasing the maximum dose rates in LCO 3.3.1, and other editorial changes to Appendices A and B of the TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the SER.

C. Environmental Impacts of the Action

On July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 5 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The MAGNASTOR® System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an ISFSI, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fires, explosions, and other incidents.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. In addition, because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 5 would remain well within 10 CFR part 20 radiation safety limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The staff documented these safety findings in the SER for this amendment.

D. Alternative to the Action

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 5 and terminate the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into MAGNASTOR® System casks in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 5 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden on the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the action.

E. Alternative Use of Resources

Approval of Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1031 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.

F. Agencies and Persons Contacted

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

G. Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 5,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements, and is therefore not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and NAC International, Inc. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

XI. Regulatory Analysis

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use casks with NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70687), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the MAGNASTOR® System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214.

On December 19, 2013, and as supplemented on March 19, May 15, and June 13, 2014, NAC International, Inc., submitted an application to amend the MAGNASTOR® System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 5 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the MAGNASTOR® System cask under the changes described in Amendment No. 5 to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden on the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and the environmental assessment, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises CoC No. 1031 for the NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” The revision consists of Amendment No. 5, which adds a new damaged fuel assembly; revises the maximum or minimum enrichments for three fuel assembly designs; adds four-zone new preferential loading for pressurized-water reactor fuel assemblies; increases the maximum dose rates in LCO 3.3.1; and makes other editorial changes to Appendices A and B to the TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the SER.

Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1031 for the NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 5 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 5. These changes do not affect existing users of the MAGNASTOR® System, and the current amendments continue to be effective for existing users. While any current CoC users may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 5, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users. For these reasons, Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1031 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the staff.

XIII. Congressional Review Act

This action is not a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

XIV. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

Document ADAMS
  • accession No./
  • web link/
  • Federal
  • Register
  • citation
  • Proposed CoC No. 1031, Amendment No. 5 ML14216A197 Proposed TS, Appendix A ML14216A257 Proposed TS, Appendix B ML14216A270 Preliminary SER ML14216A310 Request to Amend Reference 1 Dated December 19, 2013 ML13361A144 Request to Amend Reference 3 Dated March 19, 2014 ML14079A525 Request for Additional Information (RAI) Dated May 15, 2014 ML14140A239 Supplemental Information for Proposed Action Dated June 13, 2014 ML14170A032

    The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2014-0261. The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2014-0261); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

    Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.

    PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Atomic Energy Act secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act sec. 102 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 549 (2005).

    Section 72.44(g) also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d) (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 189 (42 U.S.C. 2239); Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 134 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 145(g) (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 117(a), 141(h) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subpart K also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10198).

    2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 is revised to read as follows:
    § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

    Certificate Number: 1031.

    Initial Certificate Effective Date: February 4, 2009.

    Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: August 30, 2010.

    Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: January 30, 2012.

    Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: July 25, 2013.

    Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: April 14, 2015.

    Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: June 29, 2015.

    SAR Submitted by: NAC International, Inc.

    SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the MAGNASTOR® System.

    Docket Number: 72-1031.

    Certificate Expiration Date: February 4, 2029.

    Model Number: MAGNASTOR®.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of January, 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mark A. Satorius, Executive Director for Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08679 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Parts 217, 225, and 238 [Docket No. R-1509] RIN 1700-AE 30 Regulations Q, Y, and LL: Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement; Capital Adequacy of Board-Regulated Institutions; Bank Holding Companies; Savings and Loan Holding Companies AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board is adopting final amendments (Final Rule) to the Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement (Regulation Y, Appendix C) (Policy Statement) that: raise from $500 million to $1 billion the asset threshold to qualify for the Policy Statement; and expand the scope of companies eligible under the Policy Statement to include savings and loan holding companies. The Board is also adopting final conforming revisions to Regulation Y and Regulation LL, the Board's regulations governing the operations and activities of bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies, respectively, and Regulation Q, the Board's regulatory capital rules.

    DATES:

    The final rule is effective May 15, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Constance M. Horsley, Assistant Director, (202) 452-5239, Cynthia Ayouch, Manager, (202) 452-2204, Thomas Boemio, Manager, (202) 452-2982, Douglas Carpenter, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-2205, Page Conkling, Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 912-4647, or Noah Cuttler, Senior Financial Analyst, (202) 912-4678, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; Laurie Schaffer, Associate General Counsel, (202) 452-2272, or Tate Wilson, Counsel, (202) 452-3696, Legal Division; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Overview of Comments III. Summary of the Final Rule IV. Administrative Law Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Plain Language I. Background

    On February 3, 2015, the Board invited comment on a proposed rule (Proposed Rule) 1 to implement Public Law 113-250 (the Act).2 The Proposed Rule proposed increasing the amount of assets qualifying holding companies may have, expanding the application of the Policy Statement to qualifying savings and loan holding companies, revising the applicability of the Board's regulatory capital rules 3 to exclude savings and loan holding companies subject to the Policy Statement, and revising certain reporting requirements. Specifically, the Proposed Rule would allow bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with less than $1 billion in total consolidated assets to qualify under the Policy Statement, provided the holding companies also comply with three qualitative requirements (Qualitative Requirements). Previously, only bank holding companies with less than $500 million in total consolidated assets that complied with the Qualitative Requirements could qualify under the Policy Statement. With the exception of the proposed changes to the reporting requirements, the Board is adopting as final the Proposed Rule without changes.4

    1 80 FR 5694 (February 3, 2015) (Proposed Rule).

    2 Pub. L. 113-250 (December 18, 2014) (Pub. L. 113-250). The Act was enacted on December 18, 2014, and became immediately effective.

    3 12 CFR part 217 (Regulation Q).

    4 The comment period for the proposed changes to the reporting requirements in the Proposed Rule runs through April 6, 2015. Once the comment period for the proposed reporting requirements closes, the Board will consider any and all reporting and Paperwork Reduction Act-related comments before finalizing any reporting changes.

    The Board issued the Policy Statement in 1980 to facilitate the transfer of ownership of small community-based banks in a manner consistent with bank safety and soundness. The Board has generally discouraged the use of debt by bank holding companies to finance the acquisition of banks or other companies because high levels of debt can impair the ability of the holding company to serve as a source of strength to its subsidiary banks. The Board has recognized, however, that small bank holding companies have less access to equity financing than larger bank holding companies and that the transfer of ownership of small banks often requires the use of acquisition debt. Accordingly, the Board adopted the Policy Statement to permit the formation and expansion of small bank holding companies with debt levels that are higher than typically permitted for larger bank holding companies. The Policy Statement contains several conditions and restrictions designed to ensure that small bank holding companies that operate with the higher levels of debt permitted by the Policy Statement do not present an undue risk to the safety and soundness of their subsidiary banks.

    Previously, the Policy Statement applied only to bank holding companies with pro forma consolidated assets of less than $500 million that met the following Qualitative Requirements: (i) Were not engaged in significant nonbanking activities either directly or through a nonbank subsidiary; (ii) did not conduct significant off-balance sheet activities (including securitization and asset management or administration) either directly or through a nonbank subsidiary; 5 and (iii) did not have a material amount of debt or equity securities outstanding (other than trust preferred securities) that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Board last raised the asset threshold in 2006 when it increased it from $150 million to $500 million.6

    5 The examples provided in the Policy Statement—securitization and asset management or administration—are not exhaustive and serve to highlight off-balance sheet activities that may involve substantial risk. Other activities may present similar concerns. See also 71 FR 9897, 9899, fn. 2 (February 28, 2006) (2006 Final Rule).

    6See 2006 Final Rule.

    Under the Policy Statement, holding companies that meet the Qualitative Requirements may use debt to finance up to 75 percent of the purchase price of an acquisition (that is, they may have a debt-to-equity ratio of up to 3.0:1), but are subject to a number of ongoing requirements. The principal ongoing requirements are that a qualifying holding company: (i) Reduce its parent company debt in such a manner that all debt is retired within 25 years of being incurred; (ii) reduce its debt-to equity ratio to .30:1 or less within 12 years of the debt being incurred; (iii) ensure that each of its subsidiary insured depository institutions is well capitalized; and (iv) refrain from paying dividends until such time as it reduces its debt-to-equity ratio to 1.0:1 or less. The Policy Statement also specifically provides that a qualifying bank holding company may not use the expedited procedures for obtaining approval of acquisition proposals or obtaining a waiver of the stock redemption filing requirements applicable to bank holding companies under the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.4(b), 225.14, and 225.23) unless the bank holding company has a pro forma debt-to-equity ratio of 1.0:1 or less.

    II. Overview of Comments

    The Board received 11 comments on the Proposed Rule. Comments were submitted by financial trade associations, individuals associated with financial institutions, and a law firm that represents bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies. While each commenter expressed general support for the Proposed Rule, some commenters recommended revisions to the Proposed Rule. For instance, one commenter expressed support for raising the asset threshold higher than $1 billion. Another commenter expressed support for the nonbanking and off-balance sheet activity requirements but suggested that the Board consider rescinding or revising the requirement relating to outstanding debt or equity securities registered with the SEC. The Board's responses to these comments are discussed below.

    III. Summary of the Final Rule Increase in Amount of Qualifying Assets

    Under the Final Rule, a holding company with less than $1 billion in total consolidated assets may qualify under the Policy Statement, provided it also complies with the Qualitative Requirements. This new asset limit is set by statute.7 As noted above, commenters generally supported the Board's proposal to increase the scope of the Policy Statement by allowing firms with less than $1 billion in total assets to qualify. One commenter suggested that the threshold be increased to $5 billion. The Act directs the Board to increase the threshold to $1 billion, and section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) 8 effectively prevents the threshold from being raised any higher.

    7 Public Law 113-250.

    8 12 U.S.C. 5371, as amended.

    Policy Statement's Application to Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The Act also directs the Board to propose revisions to the Policy Statement that would extend its application to certain savings and loan holding companies. Consistent with the Proposed Rule, the Final Rule applies the revised Policy Statement to savings and loan holding companies by amending Appendix C to 12 CFR part 225 and adding new section 238.9 to Subpart A of Regulation LL.

    As explained in the Proposed Rule, this change requires other modifications to the Policy Statement to take into account the status of savings associations under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (BHC Act). The first Qualitative Requirement uses the terms “nonbanking activities” and “nonbank subsidiary” to refer to the activities of a bank holding company. Under the BHC Act, however, control of a savings association by a bank holding company is considered a nonbanking activity.9 Because savings and loan holding companies control savings associations, all activities of savings and loan holding companies, including the control of savings associations would be considered nonbanking activities under the Policy Statement.

    9See 12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)(B), 1841(j), and 1843(i)(1).

    This outcome would be inconsistent with Congressional intent to apply the Policy Statement to savings and loan holding companies.10 The Board therefore will treat subsidiary savings associations of savings and loan holding companies as if they were banks for purposes of applying the Policy Statement.

    10See, e.g., Pub. L. 113-250, sec. 2(b).

    As is the case with bank holding companies, whether a savings and loan holding company engages in “significant” nonbanking activities will depend on the scope of the activities of the savings and loan holding company, the nature and level of risk of the activities, the condition of the savings and loan holding company, and other criteria as appropriate.11

    11 For purposes of applying the Policy Statement to savings and loan holding companies, the term “nonbank subsidiary” as used in the Policy Statement refers to a subsidiary of a savings and loan holding company other than a savings association or a subsidiary of a savings association.

    Consistent with the Policy Statement's provisions for bank holding companies, the Board retains the right to exclude any savings and loan holding company, regardless of size, from the Policy Statement if the Board determines that such action is warranted for supervisory purposes.

    Policy Statement's Qualitative Requirements

    The Final Rule retains the Qualitative Requirements without change. One commenter noted that the Qualitative Requirements concerning nonbanking and off-balance sheet activities adequately cover bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies that meet the size threshold but have unusually complex activities at the holding company level. None of the commenters expressed concerns related to the nonbanking or off-balance sheet activities requirements. Consistent with the Board's previously-issued guidance on these two Qualitative Requirements,12 whether a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company engages in significant nonbanking or off-balance sheet activities will continue to depend on a consideration of the scope of the activities, the nature and level of risk of the activities, the condition of the holding company and its subsidiary depository institution, and other criteria as appropriate. As previously stated, determinations of significance are made on a case-by-case basis, and relatively few bank holding companies or savings and loan holding companies are likely to be excluded from the Policy Statement due to the Qualitative Requirements concerning nonbanking and off-balance sheet activities.13

    12See Proposed Rule, 80 FR 5695; 2006 Final Rule, 71 FR 9899-9900.

    13 2006 Final Rule, 71 FR 9900.

    One commenter urged the Board to rescind the Qualitative Requirement that would disqualify a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company with a material amount of outstanding SEC-registered debt or equity securities. In the alternative, the commenter suggested the Board clarify whether bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies that meet the asset size threshold and would otherwise qualify under the Policy Statement but for having SEC-registered debt or equity could qualify under the Policy Statement.

    The exclusion from the Policy Statement of any bank holding company that has a material amount of SEC-registered debt or equity securities reflected the view that SEC registrants typically exhibited a degree of complexity of operations and access to multiple funding sources that warranted exclusion from the Policy Statement.14 Determinations of materiality are made on a case-by-case basis in order to assess the complexity of a firm. In considering whether a savings and loan holding company or bank holding company has a material amount of SEC-registered debt or equity securities outstanding that contributes to its complexity (other than trust preferred securities), the Board may consider, among other factors: The number and type of classes and series of stock issued; the holding company's market capitalization; the number of outstanding shares; the average trading volume; the holding company's history of issuing equity and debt securities, including whether the entity has issued any other securities that are not registered with the SEC (e.g., privately-placed securities); the nature and distribution of ownership; whether the securities are listed on a national exchange; whether the holding company qualifies as a “smaller reporting company” pursuant to the SEC's regulations and related interpretations; and the amount, type, and terms of any debt instruments issued by the entity. While the Policy Statement has included the “materiality” standard since 2006, as a general matter, application of this standard has not resulted in many bank holding companies being excluded from the Policy Statement. After considering the concerns raised by the commenter, the Board is adopting the Qualitative Requirements unchanged.

    14 2006 Final Rule, 71 FR 9899.

    Regulation Q Change

    When the Board proposed the Proposed Rule, the Board separately revised Regulation Q, 12 CFR part 217, through issuance of an interim final rule (Interim Final Rule), to exclude a qualifying savings and loan holding company from consolidated regulatory capital requirements.15 The Interim Final Rule gave effect to the Act, which immediately excepted savings and loan holding companies that complied with the Policy Statement then in effect from the provisions of section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Act.16 At that time, the Policy Statement applied to firms with less than $500 million in total consolidated assets so the Interim Final Rule contained the same limit. In the Proposed Rule, the Board proposed further revisions to Regulation Q that would expand the scope of the exclusion for savings and loan holding companies to firms with less than $1 billion in total consolidated assets that also meet the Qualitative Requirements. The proposed revisions to Regulation Q in the Proposed Rule would supersede the changes to Regulation Q from the Interim Final Rule. The Board did not receive any comments concerning the proposed change to Regulation Q. The Board is adopting as final the proposed revisions to Regulation Q that conform it to reflect the revised Policy Statement.

    15 80 FR 5666 (February 3, 2015).

    16See Pub. L. 113-250.

    Conforming Amendments

    A number of filing and other provisions in Regulations Y and LL are triggered by the asset size established in the Policy Statement. The Board is adopting as final the proposed changes that enable qualifying small bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies to take advantage of the streamlined informational, notice, and other regulatory requirements. These technical and conforming amendments provide relief to most bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with less than $1 billion of total consolidated assets. The Final Rule includes the following technical and conforming amendments:

    • In section 217.1(c)(1)(iii), Regulation Q (12 CFR part 217) excludes savings and loan holding companies that are subject to the Policy Statement through operation of section 238.9 of the Board's Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238).

    • In section 225.2(r), footnote 2, the footnote describing the application of the definition of “well-capitalized” in the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225) applies to entities with less than $1 billion of total assets.

    • In section 225.4(b)(2)(iii), different pro forma financial information is required of smaller bank holding companies with less than $1 billion in total assets than for larger bank holding companies under section 225.4(b)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    • In section 225.14(a)(1)(v), different pro forma financial information is required of smaller bank holding companies with less than $1 billion in total assets than for larger bank holding companies under section 225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y.

    • In section 225.17(a)(6), footnote 6, a bank holding company with less than $1 billion in assets can satisfy the debt requirement if it complies with the Policy Statement.

    • In section 225.23(a)(1)(iii), different pro forma financial information is required of smaller bank holding companies with less than $1 billion in total assets than for larger bank holding companies under section 225.23 of the Board's Regulation Y.

    IV. Administrative Law Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Board is providing a final regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to the Final Rule. As discussed above, the Final Rule reduces regulatory burden on small entities by excluding many bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of less than $1 billion that meet the Qualitative Requirements from the application of Regulation Q.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires that an agency provide a final regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with a final rule. Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a small bank holding company, bank, or savings and loan holding company is defined as having assets of $550 million or less (collectively, small banking organizations).17 As of December 31, 2014, there were approximately 3,862 small bank holding companies and 275 small savings and loan holding companies.

    17See 13 CFR 121.201. Effective July 14, 2014, the Small Business Administration revised the size standards for banking organizations to $550 million in assets from $500 million in assets. 79 FR 33647 (June 12, 2014).

    The Board received no comments from the public or from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis provided with the notice of proposed rulemaking. Thus, no issues were raised in public comments related to the Board's initial regulatory flexibility act analysis and no changes are being made in response to such comments.

    The Final Rule impacts small bank holding companies and small savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $500 to $550 million that meet the Qualitative Requirements by providing an exclusion for these companies from Regulation Q. The Board believes that most affected small banking organizations already hold more capital than is required under Regulation Q, so the burden reduction from the exclusion from Regulation Q is primarily related to compliance and systems necessary to comply with Regulation Q. In addition, affected small bank holding companies will now be able to take advantage of the applications processing procedures provided to qualifying companies under the Policy Statement.

    There are no significant alternatives to the Final Rule that have less economic impact on small banking organizations, and the Final Rule significantly reduces burden on nearly all small banking organizations.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    At this time, the Board is not adopting as final the changes to reporting requirements in the Proposed Rule. The comment period for the proposed changes to the reporting requirements in the Proposed Rule runs through April 6, 2015. Once the comment period for the proposed reporting requirements closes, the Board will consider any and all reporting and Paperwork Reduction Act-related comments before finalizing any reporting changes.

    C. Plain Language

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471, 12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the Federal banking agencies to use “plain language” in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. In light of this requirement, the Board has sought to present the Final Rule in a simple and straightforward manner. The Board sought to present the Proposed Rule in a simple and straightforward manner and solicited comment on how to make the Proposed Rule easier to understand. No comments were received on the use of plain language.

    List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 217

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Capital, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    12 CFR Part 225

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    12 CFR Part 238

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Federal Reserve System 12 CFR CHAPTER II Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:

    PART 217—CAPITAL ADEQUACY OF BANK HOLDING COMPANIES, SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING COMPANIES, AND STATE MEMBER BANKS (REGULATION Q) 1. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 248(a), 321-338a, 481-486, 1462a, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1851, 3904, 3906-3909, 4808, 5365, 5368, 5371.

    2. In § 217.1, revise paragraph (c)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 217.1 Purpose, applicability, reservations of authority, and timing.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) A covered savings and loan holding company domiciled in the United States, other than a savings and loan holding company that has total consolidated assets of less than $1 billion and meets the requirements of 12 CFR part 225, appendix C, as if the savings and loan holding company were a bank holding company and the savings association were a bank. For purposes of compliance with the capital adequacy requirements and calculations in this part, savings and loan holding companies that do not file the FR Y-9C should follow the instructions to the FR Y-9C.

    PART 225—BANK HOLDING COMPANIES AND CHANGE IN BANK CONTROL (REGULATION Y) 3. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818, 1828(o), 1831i, 1831p-1, 1843(c)(8), 1844(b), 1972(1), 3106, 3108, 3310, 3331-3351, 3906, 3907, and 3909; 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, 6801 and 6805.

    4. In § 225.2, paragraph (r), revise footnote 2 to read as follows:
    § 225.2 Definitions.

    (r) * * *

    Footnote 2: For purposes of this subpart and subparts B and C of this part, a bank holding company with consolidated assets of less than $1 billion that is subject to the Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement in appendix C of this part will be deemed to be “well-capitalized” if the bank holding company meets the requirements for expedited/waived processing in appendix C.
    5. In § 225.4, revise paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 225.4 Corporate practices.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii)(A) If the bank holding company has consolidated assets of $1 billion or more, consolidated pro forma risk-based capital and leverage ratio calculations for the bank holding company as of the most recent quarter, and, if the redemption is to be debt funded, a parent-only pro forma balance sheet as of the most recent quarter; or

    (B) If the bank holding company has consolidated assets of less than $1 billion, a pro forma parent-only balance sheet as of the most recent quarter, and, if the redemption is to be debt funded, one-year income statement and cash flow projections.

    6. In § 225.14, revise paragraph (a)(1)(v) to read as follows:
    § 225.14 Expedited action for certain bank acquisitions by well-run bank holding companies.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (v)(A) If the bank holding company has consolidated assets of $1 billion or more, an abbreviated consolidated pro forma balance sheet as of the most recent quarter showing credit and debit adjustments that reflect the proposed transaction, consolidated pro forma risk-based capital ratios for the acquiring bank holding company as of the most recent quarter, and a description of the purchase price and the terms and sources of funding for the transaction;

    (B) If the bank holding company has consolidated assets of less than $1 billion, a pro forma parent-only balance sheet as of the most recent quarter showing credit and debit adjustments that reflect the proposed transaction, and a description of the purchase price, the terms and sources of funding for the transaction, and the sources and schedule for retiring any debt incurred in the transaction;

    7. In § 225.17, in paragraph (a)(6), revise footnote 6 to read as follows:
    § 225.17 Notice procedure for one-bank holding company formations.

    (a) * * *

    (6) * * *

    Footnote 6—For a banking organization with consolidated assets, on a pro forma basis, of less than $1 billion (other than a banking organization that will control a de novo bank), this requirement is satisfied if the proposal complies with the Board's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement (appendix C of this part).
    8. In § 225.23, revise paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 225.23 Expedited action for certain nonbanking proposals by well-run bank holding companies.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) If the proposal involves an acquisition of a going concern:

    (A) If the bank holding company has consolidated assets of $1 billion or more, an abbreviated consolidated pro forma balance sheet for the acquiring bank holding company as of the most recent quarter showing credit and debit adjustments that reflect the proposed transaction, consolidated pro forma risk-based capital ratios for the acquiring bank holding company as of the most recent quarter, a description of the purchase price and the terms and sources of funding for the transaction, and the total revenue and net income of the company to be acquired;

    (B) If the bank holding company has consolidated assets of less than $1 billion, a pro forma parent-only balance sheet as of the most recent quarter showing credit and debit adjustments that reflect the proposed transaction, a description of the purchase price and the terms and sources of funding for the transaction and the sources and schedule for retiring any debt incurred in the transaction, and the total assets, off-balance sheet items, revenue and net income of the company to be acquired;

    (C) For each insured depository institution whose Tier 1 capital, total capital, total assets or risk-weighted assets change as a result of the transaction, the total risk-weighted assets, total assets, Tier 1 capital and total capital of the institution on a pro forma basis;

    9. In appendix C to part 225, revise the heading and, under section 1, revise the first undesignated paragraph to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 225—Small Bank Holding Company and Savings and Loan Holding Company Policy Statement 1. Applicability of Policy Statement

    This policy statement applies only to bank holding companies with pro forma consolidated assets of less than $1 billion that (i) are not engaged in significant nonbanking activities either directly or through a nonbank subsidiary; (ii) do not conduct significant off-balance sheet activities (including securitization and asset management or administration) either directly or through a nonbank subsidiary; and (iii) do not have a material amount of debt or equity securities outstanding (other than trust preferred securities) that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Board may in its discretion exclude any bank holding company, regardless of asset size, from the policy statement if such action is warranted for supervisory purposes.1 With the exception of section 4 (Additional Application Requirements for Expedited/Waived Processing), the policy statement applies to savings and loan holding companies as if they were bank holding companies.

    1 Footnote 1: [Reserved]

    PART 238—SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING COMPANIES (REGULATION LL) 10. The authority citation for part 238 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552, 559; 12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467, 1467a, 1468, 1813, 1817, 1829e, 1831i, 1972; 15 U.S.C. 78l.

    11. Add § 238.9 to subpart A to read as follows:
    § 238.9 Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement.

    (a) The Board's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement (12 CFR part 225, appendix C) (Policy Statement) applies to savings and loan holding companies as if they were bank holding companies. To qualify or rely on the Policy Statement, savings and loan holding companies must meet all qualifying requirements in the Policy Statement as if they were a bank holding company. For purposes of applying the Policy Statement, the term “nonbank subsidiary” as used in the Policy Statement refers to a subsidiary of a savings and loan holding company other than a savings association or a subsidiary of a savings association.

    (b) The Board may exclude any savings and loan holding company, regardless of asset size, from the Policy Statement under paragraph (a) of this section if the Board determines that such action is warranted for supervisory purposes.

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 9, 2015. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08513 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Part 4022 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits AGENCY:

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in May 2015. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.

    DATES:

    Effective May 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Catherine B. Klion ([email protected]), Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov).

    PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

    The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for May 2015.1

    1 Appendix B to PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes interest assumptions for valuing benefits under terminating covered single-employer plans for purposes of allocation of assets under ERISA section 4044. Those assumptions are updated quarterly.

    The May 2015 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 0.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for April 2015, these interest assumptions are unchanged.

    PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

    Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during May 2015, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

    PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

    Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022

    Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

    PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.

    2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 259, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates For PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 259 5-1-15 6-1-15 0.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 259, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates For Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 259 5-1-15 6-1-15 0.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    Issued in Washington, DC, on this 7th day of April 2015. Judith Starr, General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08636 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 3 and 141 [Docket No. USCG-2013-0491] RIN 1625-AB88 Consolidation of Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection for Outer Continental Shelf Activities; Eighth Coast Guard District; Technical, Organizational, and Conforming Amendments AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is issuing a final rule establishing a consolidated Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) for the purposes of inspecting mobile offshore drilling units, and fixed and floating facilities, engaged in OCS activities in the Eighth Coast Guard District. This final rule also addresses comments submitted in response to our notice and request for comments related to the consolidation of the OCMI, for OCS activities, and makes other non-substantive changes. This rule will have no substantive effect on the regulated public.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2013-0491 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also view the docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2013-0491 in the “Search” box, and then clicking “Search.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, call or email Commander Steven Keel, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance; telephone (202) 372-1230, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents for Preamble I. Abbreviations II. Regulatory History and Information III. Basis and Purpose IV. Discussion of Comments Received V. Discussion of the Rule VI. Regulatory Analysis A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Business D. Collection of Information E. Federalism F. Unfunded mandates Reform Act G. Taking of Private Property H. Civil Justice Reform I. Protection of Children J. Indian Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards M. Environment I. Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register NCOE National Center of Expertise OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection OMB Office of Management and Budget OCS Outer Continental Shelf Pub. L. Public Law § Section Symbol U.S.C. United States Code II. Regulatory History and Information

    This rule reflects the internal organization of the Coast Guard's Eighth District, and affects administrative procedures such as contact information. It is a rule of agency organization, procedure, and practice within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and under that section no prior notice or opportunity to comment is required. Also, the Coast Guard finds for good cause that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because this final rule consists only of administrative, organizational, and conforming amendments that will have no substantive effect on the public. Therefore, we did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, although we did provide for public comment as described below.

    Because this is a rule of internal agency organization with no substantive impact on the public, we find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. (d)(3) for making this final rule effective immediately upon the date specified in the DATES section above.

    On August 7, 2013 we published a notice and request for comments (78 FR 48180) informing the public that the Eighth Coast Guard District in New Orleans was considering consolidating its OCS marine inspection function from six offices to one and invited public comment on making such a change. The duties of an OCMI are found in 33 CFR 1.01-20 and include inspection of vessels in order to determine that they comply with the applicable laws, rules, and regulations relating to safe construction, equipment, manning, and operation and that they are in a seaworthy condition for the services in which they are operated. Currently, the six OCMI field offices in the Eighth District that handle OCS matters are located in the following cities: Mobile, Alabama; New Orleans, Louisiana; Morgan City, Louisiana; Port Arthur, Texas; Houston, Texas, and Corpus Christi, Texas.

    In addition to requesting comments on the efficacy of combining the OCS OCMI function, the request offered four different ways in which the consolidated Eighth District OCS OCMI could be established using the existing organizational structure of the Eighth District. We also asked for comments on which city a consolidated Eighth District OCS OCMI should be physically located.

    With input received in response to our request, we have decided to consolidate OCMI functions for the purposes of inspecting fixed and floating facilities, and mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs), in the Eighth Coast Guard District, into a single OCMI that will serve as the Chief, Outer Continental Shelf Division, on the Eighth District staff (hereafter referred to as “Eighth District OCS OCMI”). For simplicity, we have included every Eighth District Marine Inspection Zone defined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3, Subpart 3.40 in the consolidation even though offshore inspections are not usually carried out in the inland rivers.

    III. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is provided by 14 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 92 and DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(23). Section 92 authorizes the Secretary of DHS to “establish, change the limits of, consolidate, discontinue, and re-establish Coast Guard districts” and “do any and all things necessary to carry out the purposes of” title 14, pertaining to the Coast Guard. The DHS Delegation delegates the Secretary's functions to the Commandant of the Coast Guard.

    The purpose of this rule is to make conforming amendments and technical corrections specific to agency organization, procedure, and practice. These conforming amendments and technical corrections consolidate the existing individual OCMI authorities currently within the Eighth Coast Guard District into a single OCMI authority.

    IV. Discussion of Comments Received

    We received 12 comments on the docket addressing the specific questions raised in the request for comments and we also received additional comments beyond the scope of those questions. No adverse or opposing comments were made and 11 comments expressed support for consolidation. An analysis of those comments is as follows:

    a. Should the OCMI function be consolidated? Of the 12 comments received, 11 supported the consolidation and one did not comment on this question. The reasons cited for supporting the consolidation included the belief that doing so would make more efficient use of inspection personnel and provide more consistency since decisions affecting the regulated industry would be made by one OCMI instead of six. Additionally, several commenters suggested that consolidation be carried out as promptly as possible, and three responses suggested that proper staffing would be critical to the success of the consolidated Eighth District OCMI.

    b. Where should the consolidated Eighth District OCMI be placed in the organization? Seven commenters made recommendations related to location and the remainder had none. The majority recommended that the consolidated Eighth District OCS OCMI be located in Houston, Texas or New Orleans, Louisiana and one commenter recommended Morgan City or Houma, Louisiana. One commenter suggested that desirability of the location should be taken into consideration to encourage recruitment and retention. The Coast Guard is opting to establish the Eighth District OCS OCMI as a staff element of the Eighth District, in New Orleans, Louisiana. We believe this provides the most efficient means of consolidation and places the Eighth District OCS OCMI in close proximity with the Eighth District Commander, increasing the visibility of the OCS inspection mission.

    c. Other comments: In addition to providing responses to the questions we asked in the notice, several commenters provided concerns and recommendations should the OCMI function be consolidated. Several commenters expressed concern that the success of an Eighth District OCS OCMI would depend on proper staffing levels. We agree. Workforce capacity was taken into consideration when determining whether to consolidate the OCS function or not. Our workload analysis of the Eighth District OCS OCMI model identified a gain in labor efficiency equivalent to hiring 1.5 new full time employees creating more workload capacity with existing inspectors. Through consolidation, qualified marine inspectors from each of the six current OCMI staffs have been designated as dedicated OCS inspectors under the new Eighth District OCS OCMI with OCS inspection as their primary duty. We believe that focusing a core capacity of OCS inspectors will improve service delivery to the regulated industry. Additionally, we will continue to analyze workload levels for OCS inspection activities and make workforce adjustments as necessary.

    Some comments also expressed concern for OCS marine inspector proficiency. We believe that overall proficiency under the Eighth District OCS OCMI will improve for two reasons. First, the consolidation will facilitate movement of OCS inspectors within the Eighth District between the MI zones that existed before the consolidation to either meet spot workloads or gain experience more quickly than they otherwise would have. Second, the Eighth District OCS OCMI can serve as a single champion for all OCS inspectors in the District and will be better placed to track and improve their proficiency development. One commenter also recommended longer tour lengths for active duty OCS inspectors and perhaps the addition of more long term civilian OCS inspectors to improve proficiency. We agree with this comment and are considering its potential future adoption. One commenter suggested that OCS marine inspector proficiency could be improved by using only Coast Guard civilian personnel who do not serve tours like military personnel who regularly rotate out once their tour is up. We believe using active duty military personnel provides long term benefits to the Coast Guard by forming future leaders who will serve in Headquarters where important program decisions impacting the offshore energy sector are made.

    One commenter suggested that the OCS National Center of Expertise (NCOE) be consolidated into the Eighth District OCS OCMI. We do not intend to do so at this time. The NCOE is a Coast Guard Headquarters unit that focuses on programmatic issues such as policy and standardized training development. We believe that their current position in the organization is better aligned with achieving those goals than it would be if moved into the OCS OCMI organization within the Eighth District.

    One commenter was uncertain as to which office would be responsible for conducting marine casualty investigations for reportable incidents occurring offshore. The Eighth District OCS OCMI will be responsible for investigating marine casualties on fixed and floating OCS facilities, and MODUs in the Eighth Coast Guard District.

    One commenter expressed confusion over which vessels and facilities the Eighth District OCS OCMI would be responsible for inspecting. The Eighth District OCS OCMI will be responsible for inspecting a specific fleet of fixed or floating OCS facilities or mobile offshore drilling units defined in 33 CFR 140.10. Any other vessel or OCS unit type will continue to be inspected by the OCMI described in 33 CFR part 3.40 as stated prior to the consolidation. For example, a well intervention vessel that is not certificated as a mobile offshore drilling unit will continue to be inspected by the cognizant Sector or Marine Safety Unit OCMI.

    Vessels and facilities overseen by the Eighth District OCS OCMI are fleet specific; any vessel meeting the description above will fall under the purview of the Eighth District OCS OCMI regardless of where in the Eighth Coast Guard District it may be located.

    One commenter observed that the consolidation of the OCMI function fulfills a recommendation of the Coast Guard's Report of Investigation in the Circumstances Surrounding the Explosion, Fire, Sinking, and Loss of Eleven Crew Members Aboard the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit DEEPWATER HORIZON in the Gulf of Mexico April 20-22, 2010 (Volume I pages 110-111).

    One commenter positively noted that the plan to consolidate the Eighth District OCS OCMI function could be accomplished in a resource neutral way thus gaining efficiency with no additional government expense.

    V. Discussion of the Rule

    As discussed in Section II above, this rule constitutes a non-substantive organization change. Beginning May 1, 2015, vessels meeting the description set out by this rulemaking will apply to the Eighth District OCS OCMI for required inspections instead of the Sector OCMIs as was previously the case. The Eighth District OCS OCMI will also carry out other traditional OCMI activities such as inspection of damage and repairs, as well as unannounced inspections. This rule also amends 33 CFR 141.15 to clarify when determinations that affect restrictions on employment of persons other than United States citizens may be made by the Eighth District OCS OCMI. To apply for an inspection after April 30, 2015, or to learn more about the business rules of the Eighth District OCS OCMI, please visit their Web site at www.uscg.mil/d8/ocsocmi.asp, available beginning on April 27, 2015.

    VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Two additional E.O.s were recently published to promote the goals of E.O. 13563: E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”) and E.O. 13610 (“Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens”). E.O. 13609 targets international regulatory cooperation to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. E.O 13610 aims to modernize the regulatory systems and to reduce unjustified regulatory burdens and costs on the public.

    The provisions of this final rule are administrative, technical, and non-substantive; they will have no substantive effect on the public and will impose no additional costs. This final rule consolidates the functions and requirements for six existing individual OCMI authorities into a single OCMI authority within the Eighth Coast Guard District known as the Eighth District OCS OCMI. OCS units meeting the description set out by this rulemaking are already required to contact an OCMI for mandatory inspections and LODs related to citizenship. Under this final rule, such vessels will now contact the Eighth District OCS OCMI for these same requirements rather than applying to one of six different OCMIs within the Eighth District. Information on applying for inspections or receiving an LOD from the Eighth District OCS OCMI after April 30, 2015, and more about the business rules of the Eighth District OCS OCMI, may be accessed at www.uscg.mil/d8/ocsocmi.asp, which will be available beginning on April 27, 2015. This rule does not establish any new regulatory requirements impacting the public. Therefore, this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under E.O. 12866.

    2. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), rules exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are not required to examine the impact of the rule on small entities. Nevertheless, we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

    There is no cost to this final rule, and we do not expect it to have an impact on small entities because the provisions of this rule will have no substantive effect on the public and will impose no additional costs. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Mugo Macharia by phone at 202-372-1472 or via email at [email protected]

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”) if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

    6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any 1 year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    7. Taking of Private Property

    This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”).

    8. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 (“Civil Justice Reform”), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    9. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This final rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    10. Indian Tribal Governments

    This final rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    11. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

    12. Technical Standards

    This final rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    13. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(a), (b), and (d) of the Instruction. This final rule involves regulations that are editorial or procedural, or that concern internal agency functions or organizations. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket for this final rule where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 3

    Organization and functions (Government agencies).

    33 CFR Part 141

    Citizenship and naturalization, Continental shelf, Employment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Chapter I as follows:

    1. The authority for part 3 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    14 U.S.C. 92 and 93; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. 2(23).

    PART 3—COAST GUARD AREAS, DISTRICTS, SECTORS, MARINE INSPECTION ZONES, AND CAPTAIN OF THE PORT ZONES 2. Add § 3.40-5 to read as follows:
    § 3.40-5. Eighth District Outer Continental Shelf Marine Inspection Zone.

    (a) A separate marine inspection zone, with an office located in New Orleans, Louisiana, performs the OCMI functions defined in 33 CFR 1.01-20 for all MODUs and fixed and floating OCS facilities, as those terms are defined in 33 CFR 140.10, engaged in OCS activities wherever located in the Eighth Coast Guard District.

    (b) Notwithstanding the OCMI inspection authority held by Eighth Coast Guard District Sector Commanders and Marine Safety Unit Commanders in § 3.01-1(d), the Chief, Outer Continental Shelf Division at the Eighth Coast Guard District, shall serve as the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, for this Marine Inspection Zone and shall be known as the Eighth District Outer Continental Shelf Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. The District Commander resolves any conflict between the functions of this marine inspection zone and any geographically based marine inspection zones described in 33 CFR 3.40-10, 3.40-15, 3.40-28, 3.40-35, 3.40-40, 3.40-60, or 3.40.65.

    §§ 3.40-10, 3.40-15, 3.40-28, 3.40-35, 3.40-40, 3.40-60, 3.40-65 [Amended]
    3. Add the words the words “Subject to the overriding provisions of § 3.40-5,” in the following places: a. In § 3.40-10, at the beginning of the second sentence; b. In §§ 3.40-15 and 3.40-28, at the beginning of the first sentence in paragraph (a); c. In §§ 3.40-35, 3.40-40, and 3.40-60 at the beginning of the second sentence; and d. In § 3.40-65, at the beginning of the first sentence in paragraph (a).
    PART 141—PERSONNEL 4. The authority for part 141 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    43 U.S.C. 1356; 46 U.S.C. 70105; 49 CFR 1.46(z).

    5. In § 141.15, redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (c)(1) and add paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
    § 141.15 Restrictions on employment.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Determinations in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for all MODUs and fixed and floating OCS facilities, as those terms are defined in 33 CFR 140.10, operating within the Eighth District Outer Continental Shelf Marine Inspection Zone will be made by the Eighth District Outer Continental Shelf Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, as defined and described in § 3.40-5 of this chapter.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. J.C. Burton, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08533 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0222] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Piscataqua River, Kittery, ME AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Sara M. Long Bridge, mile 2.5, across the Piscataqua River between Portsmouth, New Hampshire and Kittery, Maine. This deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge construction. This deviation allows the secondary draw at the Sara M. Long Bridge to remain closed to marine traffic during construction.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from May 15, 2015 through October 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0222] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, contact Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Sara M. Long Bridge across the Piscataqua River, mile 2.5, between Portsmouth, New Hampshire and Kittery, Maine, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8 feet at mean high water and 18 feet at mean low water.

    The secondary draw section will remain closed during construction. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.531(c).

    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels and commercial vessels of various sizes.

    The bridge owner, Maine Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate bridge construction.

    Under this temporary deviation the Sara M. Long Bridge secondary draw may remain in the closed position from May 15, 2015 through October 31, 2015.

    There is an alternate route for vessel traffic under the main span of the Sara M. Long Bridge. Vessels are advised to remain clear of the secondary draw and related construction activities during this closure. The secondary draw may be opened in the event of an emergency.

    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08660 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0202] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Eastern Branch Elizabeth River; Norfolk, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable waters of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River in support of the Old Dominion University (ODU) versus University of Virginia (UVA) Baseball Game fireworks event. This safety zone will restrict vessel movement in the specified area during the fireworks display. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on the surrounding navigable waters during the fireworks display.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on April 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0202]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Gregory Knoll, Waterways Management Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 668-5580, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior written notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule due to the short time period between event planners notifying the Coast Guard of details concerning the event, on March 19, 2015, and publication of this safety zone. As such, it is impracticable for the Coast Guard to provide a full comment period due to lack of time. Furthermore, delaying the effective date of this safety zone would be contrary to the public interest as immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. The Coast Guard will provide advance notifications to users of the affected waterway via marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Due to the need for immediate action, the restriction on vessel traffic is necessary to protect life, property and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels, and enhancing public and maritime safety.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones.

    The purpose of this safety zone is to protect the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting navigable waters of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River from hazards associated with a fireworks display. The potential hazards to mariners within the safety zone include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

    C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    On April 28, 2015, the Harbor Park Stadium will be hosting the ODU versus UVA baseball game which will include a fireworks display on the bank of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River in Norfolk, VA. The fireworks debris fallout area will extend over the navigable waters of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River.

    The Captain of the Port of Hampton Roads is establishing a safety zone on specified waters of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River in Norfolk, VA. The fireworks will be launched from the shoreline of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River located behind the Harbor Park Stadium. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters within a 210 foot radius of the fireworks launching location at position 36°50′29.8896″ N, 076°16′43.662″ W and 36°50′30.3678″ N, 076°16′39.936″ W. This safety zone will be established and enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on April 28, 2015. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the specified date and times. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port of his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

    The Captain of the Port will give notice of the enforcement of the safety zone by all appropriate means to provide the widest dissemination of notice to the affected segments of the public. This includes publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this safety zone restricts vessel traffic through the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) This rule will only be enforced for the limited size and duration of the event; and (ii) the Coast Guard will make extensive notification to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts so mariners may adjust their plans accordingly.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in waters of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River during the enforcement period.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The safety zone is of limited size and duration, and (ii) Sector Hampton Roads will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34-(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T05-0202 to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0202 Safety Zone, Eastern Branch Elizabeth River; Norfolk, VA.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the Port means the Commander, Sector Hampton Roads. Representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port. Participants mean individuals responsible for launching the fireworks.

    (b) Locations. The following area is a safety zone:

    (1) All waters of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River within a 210 foot radius of the fireworks display in approximate position 36°50′29.8896″ N, 076°16′43.662″ W and 36°50′30.3678″ N, 076°16′39.936″ W, located near the Harbor Park Stadium, Norfolk, Virginia.

    (c) Regulations.

    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones in § 165.23 of this part.

    (2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.

    (3) All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone immediately.

    (4) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his representative can be contacted at telephone number (757) 668-5555.

    (5) The Coast Guard vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).

    (6) This section applies to all persons or vessels wishing to transit through the safety zone except participants and vessels that are engaged in the following operations:

    (i) Enforcing laws;

    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and

    (iii) Emergency response vessels.

    (7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on April 28, 2015.

    Dated: April 3, 2015. Christopher S. Keane, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08659 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0612; FRL-9925-32-Region-9] Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the Southeast Desert Nonattainment Area in California AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determining that the Southeast Desert nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. This determination is based on complete, quality-assured, and certified data for the most recent three-year period (2011-2013). Preliminary data available through December 2014 are consistent with continued attainment.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0612. The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed directly below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3856, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Public Comments III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On August 25, 2014 (79 FR 50574), the EPA proposed to determine that the Southeast Desert 1-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or “standard”), based on complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality data for the 2011 to 2013 monitoring period. The Southeast Desert 1-hour ozone nonattainment area covers the Victor Valley/Barstow region in San Bernardino County, the Coachella Valley region in Riverside County, and the Antelope Valley portion of Los Angeles County (see 40 CFR 81.305 for the precise boundaries of the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area).

    Our proposed rule provides background information on the 1-hour ozone standard; the designations and classifications of the Southeast Desert under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) for the 1-hour ozone standard; EPA's prior determination that the Southeast Desert failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the 2007 applicable attainment date based on 2005-2007 ozone data; and the recent request by the State of California to make a finding of attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard for the Southeast Desert in light of improved ozone conditions in the area. See 79 FR 50574, at 50575. We also described how we determine whether an area's air quality meets the 1-hour ozone standard; identified the relevant air monitoring agencies in the Southeast Desert and their respective ozone monitoring networks and monitoring network plans; and documented our previous review of the networks and network plans, the agencies' annual certifications of ambient air monitoring data, and our determination of completeness for 2011-2013 data from the eight monitoring sites within the Southeast Desert. See 79 FR 50574, at 50576. Please see our proposed rule for more information concerning these topics.

    Our proposed rule included a table of “expected exceedences” for the Southeast Desert nonattainment area. See 79 FR 50574, at 50577. As explained in our proposed rule, an area is considered to have attained the 1-hour ozone standard if there are no violations of the standard, in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and based on three consecutive calendar years of complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data. A violation occurs when the “expected number” of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is greater than one (1.0) at any site in the area, when averaged over three consecutive calendar years.1 An exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during any day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more information, please see “National 1-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone” (40 CFR 50.9) and “Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone” (40 CFR part 50, appendix H). Based on our review of the monitoring data, and taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable ozone monitoring network, we proposed to determine that the Southeast Desert has attained the 1-hour ozone standard based on complete, certified and quality-assured data for the 2011-2013 period. In our proposed rule, we indicated that we would review preliminary data for 2014 prior to taking final action. We have now done so and find that preliminary data for 2014, from January through December, for the ozone monitoring sites in the Southeast Desert are consistent with continued attainment.

    1 An “expected number” of exceedances is a statistical term that refers to an arithmetic average. An “expected number” of exceedances may be equivalent to the number of observed exceedances plus an increment that accounts for incomplete sampling. See, 40 CFR part 50, appendix H. Because, in this context, the term “exceedances” refers to days (during which the daily maximum hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), the maximum possible number of exceedances in a given year is 365 (or 366 in a leap year).

    II. Public Comments

    EPA received no comments on the proposed action during the comment period.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is determining that the Southeast Desert nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, based on complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2011 to 2013 monitoring period. Preliminary data available for 2014, from January through December, are consistent with continued attainment.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action makes a determination based on air quality data and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and,

    • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 15, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.282 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 52.282 Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

    (g) Determination of attainment. EPA has determined that, as of May 15, 2015, the Southeast Desert 1-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard, based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for 2011-2013.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08582 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 48 CFR Parts 1515 and 1552 [EPA-HQ-OARM-2015-0182; FRL 9923-85-OARM] Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR); Source Selection and Payments AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amends the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to remove source selection guidance and clauses that are not consistent with current EPA internal operating procedures for source selections. Additionally, EPA is deleting a clause for Payments—Fixed Rate Services Contracts because it is inconsistent with sections in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). EPA does not anticipate any adverse comments.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 15, 2015 without further notice, unless adverse comment is received May 15, 2015. If adverse comment is received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2015-0182 by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (202) 566-1753

    Mail: EPA-HQ-OARM-2015-0182, OEI Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of three (3) copies.

    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center—Attention OEI Docket, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2015-0182. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Government Property—Contract Property Administration Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1752. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Staci Ramrakha, Policy, Training, and Oversight Division, Acquisition Policy and Training Service Center (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2017; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information

    1. Do not submit Classified Business Information (CBI) to EPA Web site http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions—The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    3. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    Background

    The EPA has recently issued new internal guidance for conducting source selections in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15. As a result of the new guidance, existing EPAAR subsection 1515.3, Source Selection, is no longer pertinent. The new source selection guidance does not have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency or have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Therefore, this subpart and its related clauses are being removed in their entirety. Additionally, the EPA is removing EPAAR 1552.232-73, Payments—Fixed Rate Services Contracts, because it is inconsistent with FAR 52.232-7.

    Final Rule

    This final rule makes the following changes:

    1. Amend EPAAR 1515.209 to delete source selection clauses that are no longer applicable to EPA source selections.

    2. Remove EPAAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, in its entirety.

    3. Remove EPAAR 1552.215-70, EPA Source Evaluation and Selection Procedures—Negotiated Procurements, in its entirety.

    4. Remove EPAAR 1552.215-71, Evaluation Factors for Award, in its entirety.

    5. Remove EPAAR 1552.232-73, Payments—Fixed Rate Services Contracts, in its entirety.

    6. Amend EPAAR 1552.215-72(b)(1)(iii) to delete reference to EPAAR 1552.232-73 which has been removed from the EPAAR.

    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impact of today's final rule on small entities, “small entity” is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, because the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities” 5 U.S.C. 503 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This action revises current EPAAR clauses and will not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this action from State and local officials.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under EO 12886, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate effect on children. This rule is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by EO 12866, and because it does not have a proportionate effect on children.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28335 May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment in the general public.

    K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of Agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

    List of Subjects 48 CFR Part 1515

    Environmental protection, Government procurement.

    48 CFR Part 1552

    Environmental protection, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. John R. Bashista, Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 48 CFR Chapter 15, parts 1515 and 1552 as set forth below:

    PART 1515—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTATION 1. The authority citation for part 1515 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

    2. Revise 1515.209 to read as follows:
    1515.209 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

    The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1552.215-75, Past Performance Information, or a clause substantially the same as 1552.215-75, in all competitively negotiated acquisitions with an estimated value in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold.

    Subpart 1515.3 [Removed] 3. Remove subpart 1515.3. PART 1552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 4. The authority citation for part 1552 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

    1552.215-70 and 1552.215-71 [Removed]
    5. Remove 1552.215-70 and 1552.215-71.
    6. Amend 1552.215-72 by revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
    1552.215-72 Instructions for the Preparation of Proposals.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) If the contract includes the clause at FAR 52.232-7, “Payments Under Time and Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts,” include in the cost proposal the estimated costs and burden rate to be applied to materials, other direct costs, or subcontracts. The Government will include these costs as part of its cost proposal evaluation.

    1552.232-73 [Removed]
    7. Remove 1552.232-73.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08665 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 72 Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2014-0261] RIN 3150-AJ50 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 5 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1031. Amendment No. 5 makes numerous changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) including adding a new damaged fuel assembly, revising the maximum or minimum enrichments for three fuel assembly designs, adding four-zone preferential loading for pressurized-water reactor fuel assemblies and increasing the maximum dose rates in limiting condition for operation 3.3.1, and other editorial changes to Appendices A and B of the TSs.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by May 15, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any one of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to: http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0261. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3781; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0261 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to: http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0261.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):

    You may access publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0261 in the subject line of your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Procedural Background

    This proposed rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1031 and does not include other aspects of the NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System design. Because the NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on June 29, 2015. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this proposed rule by May 15, 2015, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments received in response to these proposed revisions in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.

    A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

    (1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

    (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

    (b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

    (c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

    (2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

    (3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TSs.

    For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    III. Background

    Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

    To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), that approved the NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No.1031.

    IV. Plain Writing

    The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

    V. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

    Document ADAMS
  • accession No./
  • web link/
  • Federal
  • Register
  • citation
  • Proposed CoC No. 1031, Amendment No. 5 ML14216A197 Proposed TS, Appendix A ML14216A257 Proposed TS, Appendix B ML14216A270 Preliminary SER ML14216A310 Request to Amend Reference 1 Dated December 19, 2013 ML13361A144 Request to Amend Reference 3 Dated March 19, 2014 ML14079A525 Request for Additional Information (RAI) Dated May 15, 2014 ML14140A239 Supplemental Information for Proposed Action Dated June 13, 2014 ML14170A032

    The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2014-0261. The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2014-0261); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

    Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.

    PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Atomic Energy Act secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act sec. 102 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 549 (2005).

    Section 72.44(g) also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d) (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 189 (42 U.S.C. 2239); Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 134 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 145(g) (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 117(a), 141(h) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subpart K also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10198).

    2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 is revised to read as follows:
    § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

    Certificate Number: 1031.

    Initial Certificate Effective Date: February 4, 2009.

    Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: August 30, 2010.

    Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: January 30, 2012.

    Amendment Number 3 Effective date: July 25, 2013.

    Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: April 14, 2015.

    Amendment Number 5 Effective Date June 29, 2015.

    SAR Submitted by: NAC International, Inc.

    SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the MAGNASTOR® System.

    Docket Number: 72-1031.Certificate Expiration Date: February 4, 2029.

    Certificate Expiration Date: February 4, 2029.

    Model Number: MAGNASTOR®.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of January, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Mark A. Satorius, Executive Director for Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08677 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Chapter I [Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001] BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Chapter II [Docket No. R-1510] FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Chapter III Regulatory Publication and Review Under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 AGENCIES:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”).

    ACTION:

    Notice of outreach meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The OCC, Board, and FDIC (“Agencies”) announce the third in a series of outreach meetings on the Agencies' interagency process to review their regulations under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (“EGRPRA”).

    DATES:

    An outreach meeting will be held in Boston, Massachusetts on Monday, May 4, 2015, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Online registrations will be accepted through April 27, 2015, or until all seats are filled, whichever is earlier. If seats are available after the close of online registration, individuals may register in person at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston on the day of the meeting. Additional outreach meetings are scheduled for August 4, 2015, in Kansas City, Missouri (focusing on rural insured depository institutions); October 19, 2015, in Chicago, Illinois; and December 2, 2015, in Washington, DC.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Agencies will hold the May 4, 2015, outreach meeting at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. Live video of this meeting will be streamed at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/. All participants should register at

    http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/outreach/outreach-index.html.

    Any interested individual may submit comments through the EGRPRA Web site during open comment periods at: http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/submit-comment/submit-comment-index.html. On this site, click “Submit a Comment” and follow the instructions. Alternatively, comments also may be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal “Regulations.gov” at: http://www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001” in the Search Box, click “Search,” and click “Comment Now.” Those who wish to submit their comments by an alternate means may do so as indicated by each agency below.

    OCC:

    The OCC encourages commenters to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Regulations.gov, in accordance with the previous paragraph. Alternatively, comments may be emailed to [email protected] or sent by mail to Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Mail Stop 9W-11, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. Comments also may be faxed to (571) 465-4326 or hand delivered or sent by courier to 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For comments submitted by any means other than Regulations.gov, you must include “OCC” as the agency name and “Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001” in your comment.

    In general, the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them without change on Regulations.gov. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, as well as any business or personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, or phone number, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Therefore, please do not include any information with your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    You may inspect and photocopy in person all comments received by the OCC at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect or photocopy comments. You may make an appointment by calling (202) 649-6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to a security screening.

    Board:

    The Board encourages commenters to submit comments regarding the Board's regulations by any of the following methods:

    • Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web site.

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal, in accordance with the directions above.

    • Email: [email protected] Include “EGRPRA” and Docket No. R-1510 in the subject line of the message.

    • FAX: (202) 452-3819.

    • Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    In general, the Board will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them without change on the Board's public Web site, www.federalreserve.gov; Regulations.gov; and http://egrpra.ffiec.gov. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, as well as any business or personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, or phone number, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Therefore, please do not enclose any information with your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    You may inspect and photocopy in person all comments received by the Board at 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551. For security reasons, the Board requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may make an appointment by calling (202) 452-3000. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to a security screening.

    FDIC:

    The FDIC encourages commenters to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, “Regulations.gov,” in accordance with the directions above. Alternatively, you may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    • Agency Web site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal. Follow instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web site.

    • Email: [email protected] Include “EGRPRA” in the subject line of the message.

    • Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    • Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. (EDT).

    The FDIC will post all comments received to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal without change, including any personal information provided. Comments may be inspected and photocopied in the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. (EDT) on business days. Paper copies of public comments may be ordered from the Public Information Center by calling (877) 275-3342.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    OCC: Heidi M. Thomas, Special Counsel, (202) 649-5490; for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY (202) 649-5597.

    Board: Kevin Wilson, Financial Analyst, (202) 452-2362; Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel (202) 452-2552; for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY (202) 263-4869.

    FDIC: Ruth R. Amberg, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 898-3736; for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY 1-800-925-4618.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    EGRPRA 1 directs the Agencies, along with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (Council), not less frequently than once every ten years, to conduct a review of their regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulations imposed on insured depository institutions. As part of this review, the Agencies are holding a series of six outreach meetings to provide an opportunity for bankers, consumer and community groups, and other interested persons to present their views directly to senior management and staff of the Agencies on any of 12 specific categories of the Agencies' regulations, as further described below. The Agencies held the first of these outreach meetings on December 2, 2014, in Los Angeles, California, and the second outreach meeting on February 4, 2015, in Dallas, Texas.2 Additional details about the first two outreach meetings, including the agendas, are available on the EGRPRA Web site at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/outreach/outreach-index.html.

    1 Public Law 104-208 (1996), 110 Stat. 3009-414, codified at 12 U.S.C. 3311.

    2 Recorded videos of these outreach meetings are available on the EGRPRA Web site at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/outreach/outreach-index.html.

    The third outreach meeting will be held on May 4, 2015, in Boston, Massachusetts and will be streamed live at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/. Senior agency staff from the Board, OCC, and FDIC are scheduled to attend. The meeting will consist of panels of bankers and consumer and community groups who will present particular issues. There will be limited time after each panel for comments from meeting attendees. In addition, there will be a session at the end of the meeting during which audience members may present views on any of the regulations under review. The Agencies reserve the right to limit the time of individual commenters, if needed, in order to accommodate the number of persons desiring to speak.

    Comments made by panelists and audience members at this meeting will be reflected in the public comment file. Audience members who do not wish to comment orally may submit written comments at the meeting. As noted above, any interested person may submit comments through the EGRPRA Web site during open comment periods at: http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/submit-comment/submit-comment-index.html or directly to the Agencies through any of the other manners specified above.

    All participants should register for the Boston outreach meeting at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/outreach/outreach-index.html. Because of space constraints, on-site attendance will be limited. Online registrations will be accepted through April 27, 2015, or until all seats are filled, whichever is earlier. If seats are available, individuals may register in person at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston on the day of the meeting. Individuals do not need to register to view the live-stream broadcast.

    We note that the meeting will be video-recorded and publicly webcast in order to increase education and outreach. By participating in person at the meeting, you consent to appear in such recordings.

    Additional Background on EGRPRA

    Section 2222 of EGRPRA directs the Agencies, along with the Council, to conduct a review of their regulations not less frequently than once every ten years to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions. In conducting this review, the Agencies are required to categorize their regulations by type and, at regular intervals, provide notice and solicit public comment on categories of regulations, requesting commenters to identify areas of regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome. The statute requires the Agencies to publish in the Federal Register a summary of the comments received, identifying significant issues raised and commenting on these issues. The statute also directs the Agencies to eliminate unnecessary regulations to the extent that such action is appropriate. Finally, section 2222 requires the Council, of which the Agencies are members, to submit a report to Congress that summarizes any significant issues raised in the public comments and the relative merits of such issues. The report also must include an analysis of whether the Agencies are able to address the regulatory burdens associated with such issues by regulation or whether these burdens must be addressed by legislative action.

    For purposes of this review, the Agencies have grouped our regulations into 12 categories: Applications and Reporting; Banking Operations; Capital; Community Reinvestment Act; Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers and Employees; International Operations; Money Laundering; Powers and Activities; Rules of Procedure; Safety and Soundness; and Securities. On June 4, 2014, we published a Federal Register notice announcing the start of the EGRPRA review process and also asking for public comment on three of these categories—Applications and Reporting; Powers and Activities; and International Operations regulations.3 In that notice we published a chart, listing the Agencies' regulations in the 12 categories included in the EGRPRA review. On February 13, 2015, we published a Federal Register notice asking for public comment on three additional categories—Banking Operations; Capital; and the Community Reinvestment Act.4 The comment period for the current Federal Register notice closes on May 14, 2015.

    3 79 FR 32172.

    4 80 FR 7980.

    Recently, the Agencies have decided to expand the scope of the EGRPRA review in order to be as inclusive as possible. Accordingly, the Agencies will take comment on all of our regulations issued in final form up to the date that we publish our last EGRPRA notice for public comment and report back to the Congress on all such regulations.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 7, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board. Dated: April 6, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation by Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08619 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01P; 6714-01-P; 4810-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0826; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-221-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes modified by a particular supplemental type certificate (STC). This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks found during inspections of the in-flight entertainment system radome assembly. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections for cracks in the radome assembly, and replacement of the radome if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the radome assembly, which could result in the radome (or pieces) separating from the airplane and striking the tail, consequently reducing the controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Live TV, 7415 Emerald Dunes Drive, Orlando, FL 32822; telephone 407-812-2643; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.LiveTV.net. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0826; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry Culler, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5546; fax: 404-474-5605; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0826; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-221-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We received reports of cracks in the in-flight entertainment system radomes of certain Airbus airplanes. The cracks were found during inspections of the radome assembly on various Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes that had in-flight entertainment systems installed using a certain STC issued to Live TV (STC number STC ST00788SE, http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/6df40775b10ef09a86257ae200613cfe/$FILE/ST00788SE.pdf). Investigation of the cause of the cracks revealed that radome manufacturing variation, due to a lack of dimensional controls on the radome manufacturing drawings, can result in the introduction of preload stress on the radome during its assembly with the skirt fairing. Preload stress combined with flight or handling stress, such as maintenance personnel stepping on the radome fairing assembly, might initiate a crack. The radome manufacturing drawings were revised on September 13, 2010, to add a control dimension, which was incorporated into production at radome serial number 498. Cracks in the radome, if not corrected, could result in the radome (or pieces) separating from the airplane and striking the tail, consequently reducing the controllability of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Live TV Service Bulletin A320-53-006, Rev 01, dated September 10, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for cracks in the outer ply of the radome, and replacement of the radome with a new or serviceable radome, if any crack is found. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. In addition, if any crack is found in a radome during an inspection, this proposed AD would require sending the inspection results to Live TV.

    Explanation of “RC” Steps in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as RC (required for compliance) in any service information identified previously have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.

    Steps that are identified as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, steps that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the steps identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspections 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85, per inspection cycle N/A $85, per inspection cycle $10,200, per inspection cycle.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 $0 $680
    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0826; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-221-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 1, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplane models identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, with Live TV radomes having part number (P/N) 5063-100-XX (XX designates the color option) and a serial number in the range of 001 through 497 inclusive, and modified by supplemental type certificate (STC) STC ST00788SE, http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/6df40775b10ef09a86257ae200613cfe/$FILE/ST00788SE.pdf.

    (1) Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A320-111, 211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found during inspections of the radome assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the in-flight entertainment system radome assembly, which could result in the radome (or pieces) separating from the airplane and striking the tail, consequently reducing the controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Within 3,900 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection for cracks of the radome assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Live TV Service Bulletin A320-53-006, Rev 01, dated September 10, 2014. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,900 flight hours. If any crack is found during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, replace the radome with a new or serviceable radome, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Live TV Service Bulletin A320-53-006, Rev 01, dated September 10, 2014.

    (h) Reporting Requirement

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, submit a report of the findings to Live TV, Attn: Oscar Hernandez, email: [email protected]; at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD. The report must include the information specified in the service bulletin reporting form provided in Live TV Service Bulletin A320-53-006, Rev 01, dated September 10, 2014.

    (1) If the inspection was accomplished on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.

    (2) If the inspection was accomplished before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.

    (j) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) If any service information contains steps that are identified as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done to comply with this AD; any steps that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Barry Culler, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5546; fax: 404-474-5605; email: [email protected].

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Live TV, 7415 Emerald Dunes Drive, Orlando, FL 32822; telephone 407-812-2643; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.LiveTV.net. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 6, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08465 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0828; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-146-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-23-03, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2013-23-03 currently requires doing a detailed inspection of certain attach fittings for a cylindrical defect and replacing if necessary. Since we issued AD 2013-23-03, we received a report that a machining defect was also found on some of the actuator assemblies inspected during manufacture. This defect could lead to fatigue cracking and subsequent fracture. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would mandate new inspections of the inboard actuator attach fittings for machining defects, and overhaul or replacement, if necessary. This proposed AD would also limit the compliance time for doing the replacement for certain other airplanes. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct defective inboard actuator attach fittings which, combined with loss of the outboard actuator load path, could result in uncontrolled retraction of the outboard flap, damage to flight control systems, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0828.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0828; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0828; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-146-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On October 31, 2013, we issued AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013), for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2013-23-03 requires inspecting to determine the part number of the inboard actuator attach fittings of the outboard flap. For affected attach fittings, AD 2013-23-03 requires doing a detailed inspection of the attach fittings for a cylindrical defect and replacing if necessary. As an option to the detailed inspection, AD 2013-23-03 allows replacement of affected attach fittings. AD 2013-23-03 resulted from a report of the fracture of an inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap. An inspection of the attach fitting revealed that it was incorrectly machined with a cylindrical profile instead of a conical profile, resulting in reduced wall thickness. We issued AD 2013-23-03 to detect and correct defective inboard actuator attach fittings which, combined with loss of the outboard actuator load path, could result in uncontrolled retraction of the outboard flap, damage to flight control systems, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013) Was Issued

    The preamble to AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013), specified that we considered the requirements “interim action.” AD 2013-23-03 explained that we might consider further rulemaking to require a minimum thickness inspection of inboard actuator attach fittings that are conically machined. Since we issued AD 2013-23-03, we received a report that a machining defect was also found on some of the actuator assemblies inspected during manufacture at the point where the tapered machining transitioned to the hemispherical machining at the top of the inner surface. Revised service information has been issued and, for certain airplanes, this proposed AD would mandate new inspections of the inboard actuator attach fittings for machining defects, and overhaul or replacement, if necessary. This proposed AD would also limit the compliance time for doing the replacement, for certain other airplanes.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. The service information describes procedures for new inspections of the inboard actuator attach fittings for machining defects, and overhaul or replacement, if necessary. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Related AD

    This proposed AD is related to AD 2005-20-18, Amendment 39-14312 (70 FR 57740, October 4, 2005), for Model 747-100, -200B, -200F, -200C, -100B, -300 series airplanes. AD 2005-20-18 required nspecting and overhauling, replacing, or repairing (as applicable) the actuator attach fittings on the inboard and outboard flaps of the wing. The replacement was done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-57A2316.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013). For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would mandate new inspections of the inboard actuator attach fittings for machining defects, and overhaul or replacement, if necessary. This proposed AD would also limit the compliance time for doing the replacement for certain other airplanes. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 184 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Retained inspection for part number in AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013) 7 work-hours × $85 per hour = $595 $0 $595 $109,480. New proposed inspections for machining defect 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 0 680 125,120. Replacement for airplanes without any defect 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 13,720 14,230 14,230 per airplane.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0828; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-146-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 1, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of the fracture of an inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap. An inspection of the attach fitting revealed that it was incorrectly machined with a cylindrical profile instead of a conical profile, resulting in reduced wall thickness. A machining defect was also found on some actuator assemblies inspected during manufacture at the point where the tapered machining transitioned to the hemispherical machining at the top of the inner surface. This defect could lead to fatigue cracking and subsequent fracture. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defective inboard actuator attach fittings which, combined with loss of the outboard actuator load path, could result in uncontrolled retraction of the outboard flap, damage to flight control systems, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Part Number Inspection

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013), with revised service information. Within 90 days after November 29, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-23-03): Inspect to determine the part number of the inboard actuator attach fittings of the outboard flaps, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12, 2013; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014, may be used.

    (h) Retained Actions for Certain Attach Fittings

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013), with revised service information. If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any inboard actuator attach fitting having part number (P/N) 65B08564-7 is found, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the inboard actuator attach fitting for a cylindrical defect, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12, 2013; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014, may be used. For airplanes on which the detailed inspection is done before the effective date of this AD: If any cylindrical defect is found, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Do a minimum thickness inspection of the inboard actuator attach fitting to determine minimum wall thickness of the actuator fitting assembly, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12, 2013; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. If the minimum thickness of the wall is less than 0.130 inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747 57A2343, dated September 12, 2013.

    (ii) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12, 2013.

    (2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12, 2013.

    (i) New Actions For Certain Airplanes on Which Any Cylindrical Defect Is Found

    For airplanes on which the detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD is done on or after the effective date of this AD: If any cylindrical defect is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Determine the minimum wall thickness of the actuator attach fitting either by doing an ultrasonic inspection or by mechanically measuring the thickness and do a detailed inspection of the inner conical section to determine if the machining defect is present, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (i) If the minimum thickness of the wall is less than 0.130 inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (ii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.140 inch or greater and the machining defect is present, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(A) or (i)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.

    (A) Overhaul the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (B) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (iii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is not present, within 48 months or 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (iv) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is present, before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (j) New Actions for Airplanes on Which No Cylindrical Defects Are Found

    If no cylindrical defect is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Determine the minimum wall thickness of the actuator attach fitting either by doing an ultrasonic inspection or by mechanically measuring the thickness and do a detailed inspection of the inner conical section to determine if the machining defect is present, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (i) If the minimum thickness of the wall is less than 0.130 inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747 57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (ii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.140 inch or greater and the machining defect is present, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(A) or (j)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.

    (A) Overhaul the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (B) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (iii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is not present, within 48 months or 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (iv) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is present, before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (k) New Inspection or Replacement for Certain Fittings That Were Previously Inspected

    For airplanes with any inboard actuator attach fitting having P/N 65B08564-7 installed and the fitting was inspected in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12, 2013: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the inner conical section for machining defects only, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (i) If any machining defect is found and the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.140 inch or greater: Before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A) or (k)(1)(i)(B) of this AD.

    (A) Overhaul the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (B) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (ii) If any machining defect is found and the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (iii) If no machining defect is found and the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch: Within 48 months or 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (iv) If a machining defect is or is not found and the minimum thickness of the wall is less than 0.130 inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

    (l) Part Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no actuator attach fitting having P/N 65B08564-7 that meets the requirements of CONDITION 5 or CONDITION 6 defined in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12, 2013, may be installed on any airplane unless the inspection specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD is done and the applicable actions in paragraphs (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), (k)(1)(iii), and (k)(1)(iv) are done within the applicable times specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), (k)(1)(iii), and (k)(1)(iv) of this AD.

    (m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) If any service information contains steps that are identified as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done to comply with this AD; any steps that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC provided the steps identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (5) AMOCs approved for AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 6, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08464 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0827; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-008-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-07-10, for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. AD 2011-07-10 currently requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness; doing detailed visual inspections; removing discrepant material; cleaning the surfaces of the valves, the plug of the sensing port, and the cabin pressure-sensing port plug; securing the insulation; installing a new safety valve, and replacing certain cabin pressure-sensing port plugs. Since we issued AD 2011-07-10, we have received reports of in-flight loss of cabin pressurization that was attributed to partial blockage of a safety valve cabin pressure-sensing port in conjunction with a failed safety valve manometric capsule. This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2011-07-10. This proposed AD would also require a detailed visual inspection of both safety valves and the surrounding area for foreign material, room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) silicone, contamination, foam on the bulkhead structure, tape or insulation, and loose material; and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct blockage of a safety valve cabin pressure-sensing port, which could result in loss of cabin pressure.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0827; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luke Walker, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, NY Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7363; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0827; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-008-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On March 21, 2011, we issued AD 2011-07-10, Amendment 39-16647 (76 FR 17758, March 31, 2011). AD 2011-07-10 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. AD 2011-07-10 superseded AD 2010-10-18, Amendment 39 16297 (75 FR 27406, May 17, 2010).

    Since we issued AD 2011-07-10, Amendment 39-16647 (76 FR 17758, March 31, 2011), we have received reports of in-flight loss of cabin pressurization that were attributed to partial blockage of a safety valve cabin pressure-sensing port in conjunction with a failed safety valve manometric capsule.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-06R1, dated August 8, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Investigation of a high altitude loss of cabin pressurization on a BD-100-1A10 aeroplane determined that it was caused by a partial blockage of a safety valve cabin pressure-sensing port, in conjunction with a dormant failure/leakage of the safety valve manometric capsule. The blockage, caused by accumulation of lint/dust on the grid of the port plug, did not allow sufficient airflow through the cabin pressure-sensing port to compensate for the rate of leakage from the manometric capsule, resulting in the opening of the safety valve. It was also determined that failure of the manometric capsule alone would not result in the opening of the safety valve.

    The original issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated a revision of the maintenance schedule, the cleaning of the safety valves, the removal of material from the area surrounding the safety valves and the modification of the safety valves with a gridless cabin pressure-sensing port plug.

    Since the original issue of this [Canadian] AD, there have been two additional reported events of in-flight loss of cabin pressurization that were attributed to partial blockage of a safety valve cabin pressure-sensing port in conjunction with a failed safety valve manometric capsule.

    Bombardier Aerospace has determined that aeroplanes with a particular interior installation require improved instructions to clean the safety valves and their surrounding area. In addition, Aircraft Maintenance Manual tasks have been updated to ensure that inspection of the safety valves and their surrounding is carried out after any maintenance action.

    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate inspection and cleaning of the safety valves and their surrounding area on the affected aeroplanes.

    Corrective actions include removing foreign material, cleaning surfaces of the safety valve and bulkhead, installing a new safety valve, removing loose tape, and trimming insulation. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0827.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 100-25-21, Revision 02, dated July 25, 2013. The service information describes procedures for a detailed visual inspection of both safety valves and the surrounding area for foreign material, RTV silicone, contamination, foam on the bulkhead structure, tape or insulation, and loose material, and applicable corrective actions. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (n)(1) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2011-07-10, Amendment 39-16647 (76 FR 17758, March 31, 2011), and retained in this proposed AD take about 10 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2011-07-10 is $850 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $22,780, or $340 per product.

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directives (AD) 2011-07-10, Amendment 39-16647 (76 FR 17758, March 31, 2011), and adding the following new AD: Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0827; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-008-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 1, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-07-10, Amendment 39-16647 (76 FR 17758, March 31, 2011).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 20001 through 20274.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight loss of cabin pressurization that were attributed to partial blockage of a safety valve cabin pressure-sensing port in conjunction with a failed safety valve manometric capsule. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct blockage of a safety valve cabin pressure-sensing port, which could result in loss of cabin pressure.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Revision

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2011-07-10, Amendment 39-16647 (76 FR 17758, March 31, 2011), with no changes. For all airplanes: Within 30 days after June 1, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-18, Amendment 39-16297 (75 FR 27406, May 17, 2010)), revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating Tasks 21-31-09-101 and 21-31-09-102 in the Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) 5-2-53, dated October 1, 2009, to Section 5-10-40, “Certification Maintenance Requirements,” in Part 2 of Chapter 5 of Bombardier Challenger 300 BD-100 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (1) For the new tasks identified in Bombardier TR 5-2-53, dated October 1, 2009: For airplanes identified in the “Phase-in” section of Bombardier TR 5-2-53, dated October 1, 2009, the initial compliance with the new tasks must be carried out in accordance with the phase-in schedule detailed in Bombardier TR 5-2-53, dated October 1, 2009, except where that TR specifies a compliance time from the date of the TR, this AD requires compliance within the specified time after June 1, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-18, Amendment 39-16297 (75 FR 27406, May 17, 2010)).

    Thereafter, except as provided by paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, no alternative to the task intervals may be used.

    (2) When information in Bombardier TR 5-2-53, dated October 1, 2009, has been included in the general revisions of the applicable Airworthiness Limitations section, that TR may be removed from that Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

    (h) Retained Inspection, Removal, Cleaning, and Installation

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2011-07-10, Amendment 39-16647 (76 FR 17758, March 31, 2011), with certain clarified compliance times. For airplanes having S/Ns 20003 through 20173 inclusive, 20176, and 20177: Within 50 flight hours after June 1, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-18, Amendment 39-16297 (75 FR 27406, May 17, 2010)), do a detailed visual inspection of the safety valves and surrounding areas for discrepant material (e.g., foreign material surrounding the safety valves, room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) sealant on safety valves, RTV excess on the bulkhead, tape near the safety valve opening, and, on certain airplanes, insulation near the safety valve opening, and foam in the area surrounding the safety valves) and a detailed visual inspection for contamination (e.g., RTV, dust, or lint) in the safety valve pressure ports, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-14, dated June 30, 2008 (for airplanes having S/Ns 20124, 20125, 20128, 20134, 20139, 20143, 20146, 20148 through 20173 inclusive, 20176, and 20177); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-21, dated June 30, 2008 (for airplanes having S/Ns 20003 through 20123 inclusive, 20126, 20127, 20129 to 20133 inclusive, 20135 to 20138 inclusive, 20140 through 20142 inclusive, 20144, 20145, and 20147).

    (1) If any discrepant material is found during the detailed visual inspection, before further flight, remove the discrepant material, clean the surfaces of the valves, and secure the insulation, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-14, dated June 30, 2008 (for airplanes having S/Ns 20124, 20125, 20128, 20134, 20139, 20143, 20146, 20148 through 20173 inclusive, 20176, and 20177); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-21, dated June 30, 2008 (for airplanes having S/Ns 20003 through 20123 inclusive, 20126, 20127, 20129 through 20133 inclusive, 20135 through 20138 inclusive, 20140 through 20142 inclusive, 20144, 20145, and 20147).

    (2) If contamination (e.g., RTV, dust, or lint) is found on the safety valve pressure sensing ports, before further flight, do a detailed visual inspection of the outside and inside diameters of the pressure sensing port conduit for the presence of RTV; and before further flight do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-14, dated June 30, 2008 (for airplanes having S/Ns 20124, 20125, 20128, 20134, 20139, 20143, 20146, 20148 through 20173 inclusive, 20176, and 20177); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-21, dated June 30, 2008 (for airplanes having S/Ns 20003 through 20123 inclusive, 20126, 20127, 20129 through 20133 inclusive, 20135 through 20138 inclusive, 20140 through 20142 inclusive, 20144, 20145, and 20147).

    (i) If no RTV is found, clean the plug of the sensing port.

    (ii) If any RTV is found, install a new safety valve.

    (i) Retained Cleaning for Certain Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2011-07-10, Amendment 39-16647 (76 FR 17758, March 31, 2011), with no changes. For airplanes having S/Ns 20174, 20175, 20178 through 20189 inclusive, 20191 through 20228 inclusive, 20230 through 20232 inclusive, 20235, 20237, 20238, 20241, 20244, 20247, 20249 through 20251 inclusive, 20254, 20256 and 20259: Within 50 flight hours after June 1, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-18, Amendment 39-16297 (75 FR 27406, May 17, 2010)), clean the cabin pressure-sensing port plug in both safety valves, in accordance with Paragraph 2.B., “Part A—Modification—Cleaning,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin A100-21-08, dated June 18, 2009.

    (j) Retained Cleaning for Certain Other Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2011-07-10, Amendment 39-16647 (76 FR 17758, March 31, 2011), with no changes. For airplanes having S/Ns 20003 through 20189 inclusive, 20191 through 20228 inclusive, 20230 through 20232 inclusive, 20235, 20237, 20238, 20241, 20244, 20247, 20249 through 20251 inclusive, 20254, 20256, and 20259: Within 50 flight hours after June 1, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-18, Amendment 39-16297 (75 FR 27406, May 17, 2010)), clean the cabin pressure-sensing port plug in both safety valves, in accordance with Paragraph 2.B., “Part A—Modification—Cleaning,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin A100-21-08, dated June 18, 2009. Repeat the cleaning thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 flight hours until the actions specified by paragraph (k) of this AD are completed.

    (k) Retained Replacement

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2011-07-10, Amendment 39-16647 (76 FR 17758, March 31, 2011), with no changes. For airplanes having S/Ns 20003 through 20189 inclusive, 20191 through 20228 inclusive, 20230 through 20232 inclusive, 20235, 20237, 20238, 20241, 20244, 20247, 20249 through 20251 inclusive, 20254, 20256, and 20259: Within 12 months after May 5, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-07-10), replace the cabin pressure-sensing port plug having part number (P/N) 2844-060 in both safety valves with a new gridless plug having P/N 2844-19 and re-identify the safety valves, in accordance with Paragraph 2.C., “Part B—Modification—Replacement,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin A100-21-08, dated June 18, 2009. Doing the actions in paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the repetitive cleanings required by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (l) New Requirement of This AD: Inspection and Cleaning

    For airplanes having S/Ns 20003 through 20123 inclusive, 20126, 20127, 20129 through 20133 inclusive, 20135 through 20138 inclusive, 20140 through 20142 inclusive, 20144, 20145, and 20147: Within 500 flight hours or 15 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a detailed visual inspection of both safety valves and the surrounding area for foreign material, RTV silicone, contamination, foam on the bulkhead structure, tape or insulation, and loose material, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-21, Revision 02, dated July 25, 2013. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-21, Revision 02, dated July 25, 2013.

    (m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-21, Revision 01, dated February 26, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the New York ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-06R1, dated August 8, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0827.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 6, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08463 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR 1910, 1926 [Docket No. OSHA-2014-0018] RIN 1218-AC90 Communication Tower Safety AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for Information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    OSHA is aware of employee safety risks in communication tower construction and maintenance activities and is requesting information from the public on these risks. This RFI requests information that will assist the Agency in determining what steps, if any, it can take to prevent injuries and fatalities during tower work.

    DATES:

    Comments and other information must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 15, 2015. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments and additional materials, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2014-0018, using any of the following methods:

    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.

    Facsimile: Commenters may fax submissions, including attachments, that are no longer than 10 pages in length to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648; OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents. Commenters must submit lengthy attachments that supplement these documents (e.g., studies, journal articles), by the applicable deadline, to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must clearly identify the commenter's name, the date of submission, the title of this RFI (Communication Tower Safety), and the docket number (OSHA-2014-0018) so the Agency can attach them to the appropriate facsimile submission.

    Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery, or messenger service: Submit a copy of comments and any additional material (e.g., studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2014-0018, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2350 (TTY number: (877) 889-5627). Note that security procedures may significantly delay the Agency's receipt of comments and other written materials sent by regular mail. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery, or messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m.—4:45 p.m., E.T.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency's name (OSHA), the title of this RFI (Communication Tower Safety), and the docket number (OSHA-2014-0018). The Agency places all submissions, including any personal information provided, in the public docket without change; this information will be available online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about submitting materials that they do not want made available to the public or that contain personal information (either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and medical data.

    Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the docket, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, or to the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. While the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov lists documents in the docket, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information regarding this Request for Information is available from the following sources:

    Press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; email: [email protected]; telephone: (202) 693-1999.

    General and technical information: Contact Erin Patterson or Jessica Douma, Office of Construction Standards and Guidance, OSHA Directorate of Construction, Room N-3468, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; emails: [email protected] or [email protected]; telephone: (202) 693-2020; fax: (202) 693-1689.

    Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice, as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Exhibits Referenced in This RFI II. Background A. Introduction B. Hazards and Incidents C. Training and Certification D. Applicable OSHA Standards E. Consensus Standards and State Standards III. Request for Data, Information, and Comments IV. Authority and Signature I. Exhibits Referenced in This RFI

    Documents referenced by OSHA in this request for information, other than OSHA standards and Federal Register notices, are in Docket No. OSHA-2014-0018 (Communication Tower Safety). The docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal. For additional information on submitting items to, or accessing items in, the docket, please refer to the Addresses section of this RFI.

    II. Background A. Introduction

    Communication towers are tall structures that carry antennas for wireless, cellular, radio, or broadcast television communications. There are three common types of communication towers: free-standing or lattice towers, guyed towers, and monopole towers. Communication towers can range from 100 to over 1000 feet tall.

    Increasingly, antennas are being installed on structures other than communication towers, e.g., on water towers, on electrical and telephone poles, and on the roofs of buildings. These alternative structures are often used in more densely populated areas where the construction of large communication towers is impractical or impossible, e.g., due to zoning restrictions.

    The construction and maintenance of communication towers is highly specialized work. This work often involves workers climbing the towers via ladders or being hoisted to workstations on the towers via base-mounted drum hoists. To erect new towers, workers lift tower sections or structural parts using a base-mounted drum hoist, with or without a gin pole. Workers can also use cranes to raise tower sections. Towers are constructed piece by piece; workers bolt each section or piece into place before raising the next section. Non-erection construction activities can include reinforcing the structure, upgrading antennas, and installing new antennas on existing towers (referred to as colocation). Workers also climb towers to perform maintenance activities such as painting structural steel members, changing light bulbs, and troubleshooting malfunctioning equipment. During the performance of work activities involving communication towers, workers are exposed to a variety of serious hazards, including fall hazards, hazards associated with structural collapses, struck-by hazards, hazards associated with worker fatigue, radio frequency hazards, hazards associated with inclement weather (including extreme heat and cold), electrical hazards, and cut and laceration hazards due to the use of sharp, heavy tools and materials.

    Work on communication towers often involves complex business relationships among multiple companies. Many communication towers are owned by dedicated tower companies, rather than broadcast or cell phone companies (carriers). The tower companies then lease space on the towers to wireless carriers. When a carrier needs to undertake a large-scale installation or upgrade project, it will contract with a construction management company (called a “turfing vendor”). The turfing vendor typically hires specialized subcontractors to perform specific elements of the project, and those subcontractors may further contract with other companies to perform some of the work. It is not uncommon to have as many as six or seven layers of subcontractors between the carrier and the company that employs the workers who actually perform the work (or certain parts of the work). This business structure poses challenges to setting and enforcing safety rules and ensuring the well-being of employees.

    In this RFI, OSHA is seeking information about the causes of the employee injuries and fatalities that are occurring among employees working on communication towers. The Agency is also seeking comments on safe work practices for communication tower activities, training and certification practices for communication tower workers, and potential approaches the Agency might take to address the hazards associated with work on communication towers.

    B. Hazards and Incidents

    A search of OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) database for both fatal and non-fatal incidents involving communication towers revealed 107 incidents from 2003 through 2013 (Docket ID OSHA-2014-0018-01).1 These incidents resulted in 91 fatalities and 17 injuries. Most of the fatalities (79) were due to falls. Structural collapses killed an additional eight people. Three fatalities involved electrocutions, and the last fatality was due to an employee being struck by a load while working on the tower. According to the IMIS data, falls were also the leading cause of injuries among communication tower workers, with 13 of 17 injuries resulting from falls (Docket ID OSHA-2014-0018-01).

    1 This data includes incidents that occurred as a direct result of working on or with a communication tower. Incidents at communication tower worksites resulting from unrelated factors, such as a crane tipping over due to bad ground conditions, are not included. Moreover, these figures probably do not include all incidents that occurred in the relevant time period, as they are derived solely from OSHA investigation data. The IMIS database, for example, will not include incidents that involve individuals not covered by OSHA, e.g., the self-employed. The current IMIS database generally includes incidents only when they involve at least one fatality or three or more hospitalizations.

    2013 was the deadliest year for communication tower workers since 2006. According to 2013 OSHA incident investigation reports, there were a total of 15 incidents resulting in 13 fatalities (as well as 3 injuries that required hospitalization). Of the 15 incidents identified in the 2013 reports, 11 involved falls, and of those falls, 9 were fatal. Structural collapses accounted for two fatalities, and two fatalities were the result of employees being struck by suspended materials while working on a tower (Docket ID OSHA-2014-0018-01).

    The leadership of the Department of Labor, OSHA, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently organized and participated in a workshop on communication tower work for industry stakeholders and government agencies. The event, held on October 14, 2014, included two panel discussions with representatives from tower climber advocacy organizations, the owner of a tower erection company, media representatives, carrier representatives, a tower owner representative, and a government relations liaison for a wireless infrastructure industry group. The first panel focused on the causes of tower climber fatalities and ways employers can prevent such fatalities. The second panel focused on industry-wide solutions that can be implemented by carriers, tower owners, and turfing vendors. Chairman Thomas Wheeler of the FCC and Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez spoke at the event and called for the agencies and industry stakeholders to collaborate in an effort to identify best practices and steps that the industry can take to address the hazards faced by communication tower workers. A video recording of the event can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/events/workshop-tower-climber-safety-and-injury-protection.

    C. Training and Certification

    Given the highly specialized and dangerous nature of the work that tower workers perform, employee training and preparation are critical. Many companies provide training to tower climbers. These training courses typically last two to five days and consist of a classroom component and a practical training component, with a final assessment of skills and knowledge. Topics covered during these courses typically include: fall protection procedures, climbing safety and planning, hazard assessments, and basic emergency and rescue protocols. Upon successful completion of these courses, participants receive a certification card from the company that provided the training. Although there is no standard threshold for certification, most companies that issue certification cards assert that their certifications meet standards in the National Association of Tower Erectors (NATE) Tower Climber Fall Protection Training Standard as well as other applicable standards from OSHA, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE).

    Recently, there have been some developments in employee training and preparation resulting from government and industry collaboration. The Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has developed a registered apprenticeship program for tower climbers in collaboration with a board of stakeholders. The goal of the Tower Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program (TIRAP) is to provide an industry-wide standard of training and employee development. The founding documents for TIRAP were signed on October 14, 2014.

    D. Applicable OSHA Standards

    At present, OSHA standards do not provide comprehensive coverage of communication tower construction activities. OSHA's standards for fall protection in construction (29 CFR 1926, subpart M), which generally require the use of fall protection at heights of six feet and greater, will apply in some situations, although those standards do not cover the erection of new communication towers (see 29 CFR 1926.500(a)(2)(v)). Fall protection requirements for the construction of new communication towers can be found in 29 CFR 1926.105, which requires the use of safety nets when workplaces are more than 25 feet above the ground or water surface, or other surfaces where the use of ladders, scaffolds, catch platforms, temporary floors, safety lines, or safety belts is impractical (see 29 CFR 1926.105(a)). Additionally, communication tower construction activities are exempt from OSHA's requirements for steel erection activities (29 CFR 1926, subpart R); subpart R does not cover electrical transmission towers, communication and broadcast towers, or tanks (29 CFR 1926.750(a)).

    Maintenance work on communication towers is governed by OSHA's general industry standards at 29 CFR part 1910. There are a number of general industry standards that apply to communication tower maintenance activities. Most specifically, the telecommunications standard at 29 CFR 1910.268 applies to the work conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, installations and processes performed at telecommunications field installations, such as communication towers (see 29 CFR 1910.268(a)(1)). A key provision in the telecommunications standard is § 1910.268(c), which addresses training. That provision requires employers to provide training in the various precautions and safe practices described in § 1910.268 and insure that employees do not engage in the activities to which § 1910.268 applies until such employees have received proper training. The telecommunications standard also contains requirements for fall protection (see 29 CFR 1910.268(g)). Paragraph (g) of § 1910.268 generally requires employers to provide, and ensure the use of, safety belts and straps when work is performed at positions more than 4 feet above ground, on poles, and on towers (see 29 CFR 1910.268(g)(1)).

    When existing standards do not apply to a particular hazard at a communication tower worksite, employers still have a duty to protect employees under the General Duty Clause (section 5(a)(1)) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)), which requires each employer to “furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” OSHA has used the General Duty Clause in some cases involving accidents on communication towers. For example, in March of 2014 OSHA issued a General Duty Clause citation in a case involving a double fatality caused by improper rigging on a communication tower. OSHA found that the employer was aware of, but failed to follow, industry standards and practices for safely rigging the jump line block for the gin pole.

    E. Consensus Standards and State Standards

    There are several consensus standards that address hazards in the erection, construction, and maintenance of communication towers. The Telecommunications Industry Association standard TIA-222-G, Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas (Docket ID OSHA-2014-0018-04), addresses the structural design elements associated with the fabrication of new, and the modification of existing, antenna-supporting structures. The TIA-1019-A standard, Standard for Installation, Alteration and Maintenance of Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas (Docket ID OSHA-2014-0018-05), addresses the loading of communication towers under construction and the use of specialized equipment, including gin poles, hoists, and temporary guys. There is an ANSI standard currently under development, ANSI A10.48, which will address safety practices for the construction and maintenance of communication towers. This standard may be approved within the next two years.

    Two states have dedicated standards governing communication tower construction and maintenance. These states, North Carolina and Michigan, promulgated communication tower standards following multi-fatality incidents. North Carolina's standard (Docket ID OSHA-2014-0018-03), which became effective in 2005, covers the construction, alteration, repair, operation, inspection and maintenance of communication towers (see 13 NCAC 07F.0600 et seq.). It includes provisions for employer responsibilities, fall protection and fall protection systems, non-ionizing radiation, hoists and gin poles, and employee training. The Michigan standard (Docket ID OSHA-2014-0018-02), promulgated in 2009, governs construction, alteration, repair, operation, inspections, maintenance, and demolition activities on communication towers (see Michigan Administrative Code R 408.42901 et seq.). It contains provisions on fall protection, emergency response protocols, training, training certification, hazard identification, hoists, hoisting personnel, gin poles, catheads, and capstans. Washington State is planning to update its telecommunications standard and held stakeholder meetings on the subject in July, 2014.

    III. Request for Data, Information, and Comments

    OSHA is seeking information to aid it in evaluating the hazards that workers face on communication towers. The Agency seeks information on: the types of hazards that communication tower workers encounter; the types of incidents (both fatal and non-fatal) that occur as a result of exposure to those hazards; and the best methods employers can use to address those hazards. The Agency identifies specific issues on which it is seeking comment later in this section of this RFI.

    OSHA requests comments from wireless carriers and all parties involved in the contracting chain, including turfing vendors, engineering firms, tower owners, tower construction and maintenance companies, and field staff, e.g., tower technicians who perform work on the towers. Based on its review of the information provided by the public in response to this RFI—and other OSHA research activities—the Agency will determine what additional actions, if any, to take to address hazards associated with work on communication towers. Commenters should identify the role they play with respect to the performance of work on communication towers and be as detailed as possible in their comments. Also, to the extent possible, commenters should identify the specific question(s) they are addressing (e.g., by referring to the questions being answered using the numbers provided in the list below).

    Questions for Tower Climbers  2

    2 While the questions under this heading are specific to tower climbers, OSHA strongly encourages tower climbers to consider and respond to all questions in this Request for Information.

    1. As a tower climber, what are the most significant hazards that you encounter on the job? What circumstances or conditions create or contribute to these hazards?

    2. What steps do you take, at this time, to complete your work safely? What safety-related work practices do you think should be in place?

    3. What safety rules and work practices are provided to you, and who provides you with that information?

    4. Who assigns and oversees your work? Who provides your training and checks your equipment? When at a jobsite, to whom would you report a potential safety issue?

    5. What specific steps do you think employers can take to make tower work safer?

    6. How, and to what extent, does the design or configuration of towers, and equipment installed on towers, affect your ability to complete your work safely?

    Training and Certification

    7. Tower hands/climbers, please describe the training and certification required for your job. Employers, please describe the types of training and certification you require for your employees.

    8. What commercial training programs are currently available? What are the topics covered by the programs? Are the programs adequate to prepare employees to work safely on communication towers?

    9. Is there a need for a standardized, industry-wide training or certification program?

    10. From your perspective given your role in the contracting chain, what does a tower climber need to know to do his or her job safely?

    11. How do employers evaluate employees to ensure that they have been adequately trained, especially when employees receive their training or certification elsewhere? How do companies determine if employees are proficient in the topics covered by the training or if re-training is necessary? Do employers offer site-specific training that addresses specific types of towers and equipment?

    12. For employers who contract out work (e. g., carriers, turfing vendors), what contract language or oversight mechanisms do you use to ensure that work is done by trained and/or certified workers?

    Suitability for Work

    13. Are employees directly engaged in tower work assessed for physical fitness? If so, how? Are physical fitness requirements and assessments addressed in contracting agreements?

    14. What physical limitations should employers be aware of when assigning an employee communication tower work? What hazards might be associated with such limitations, and how could those hazards be mitigated?

    Hazards and Incidents

    15. Falls: Falls are currently the leading cause of fatalities among communication tower workers. OSHA believes that many falls result from the improper use of fall protection equipment or the failure to use any fall protection equipment at all.

    a. How are employers addressing fall hazards?

    b. Are employers providing appropriate fall protection equipment to employees? Is it maintained and replaced when necessary?

    c. What factors contribute to employees failing to use fall protection while climbing or working?

    d. Are there situations in which conventional fall protection (safety nets or personal fall arrest systems) is infeasible? What alternatives can employees use for fall protection in those situations?

    e. What are the ways in which fall protection systems or anchorage points on communication towers can fail? How can these failures be prevented?

    f. Should OSHA require built-in fall protection measures on new towers? Existing towers? Would such a requirement enhance worker safety?

    16. Structural issues: When new equipment is added to communication towers, the additional loading of the tower has the potential to overload or destabilize the structure. Older towers may need additional reinforcements to maintain their structural integrity as new equipment is added to them. Communication tower collapses have resulted in numerous fatalities in the past two years. Which contractual party bears responsibility for ensuring that any structural work on the tower—such as modification or demolition—is done safely from a structural perspective? What steps are employers currently taking to prevent collapses?

    17. Hoisting materials and personnel: Base-mounted drum hoists are often used to hoist materials and personnel to working heights on communication towers. Hazards arise if hoists that are not rated for lifting personnel are used for that purpose. OSHA is aware of incidents in which hoists have failed under such conditions. Also, overloading material hoists and improper rigging procedures can result in loads striking the tower structure or workers located on the tower. OSHA knows of several deaths in the past two years that have resulted from these types of incidents.

    a. When are personnel hoists used?

    b. What types of hazards are associated with personnel and material hoists? What are the best practices for safely managing those hazards?

    c. How are capstan hoists used in tower work? In what types of operations can they be used safely?

    d. What are the most common types of rigging hazards that occur on communication tower worksites? What can employers do to eliminate or minimize those hazards?

    e. Are there methods, other than the use of a hoist or a crane, that can be used to lift material and personnel at a communication tower? Which methods and procedures are the safest?

    f. What are the roles of different levels of the contracting chain in managing rigging and hoisting activities?

    18. Radio Frequency Hazards: Much research has been done on the health effects of overexposure to radio frequencies. General health effects reviews have found that high levels of exposure to radio frequencies may result in burns. In addition, the link between exposure to radio frequencies and cancer, reproductive diseases, and neurological effects has not been thoroughly explored.

    a. What methods are employers using to protect workers from overexposure to radio frequency?

    b. Is there a need for employers to institute comprehensive radio frequency monitoring programs on communication tower worksites? What would a good program look like?

    19. Weather: Communication tower workers work outside during all seasons, and in all climates. They can be exposed to heat, cold, wind, snow, and ice. Storm conditions can quickly arise when workers are at elevation, and it can be difficult to descend the tower quickly.

    a. What are the specific weather-related hazards to which communication tower workers are exposed?

    b. How does a crew monitor and respond to changing weather conditions, including storms?

    20. Fatigue: OSHA believes that fatigue can affect communication tower workers in several ways. Climbing a communication tower is physically demanding, and OSHA is concerned that fatigue due to exertion can be hazardous for tower workers. Accelerated work timelines can also result in tower workers working very long hours. And OSHA understands that communication tower workers may travel long distances to reach remote worksites, which can result in workers being fatigued before they even begin work.

    a. What hazards are faced by a worker who finds it physically challenging to perform expected tasks, such as climbing a tower or performing a self-rescue? What impact can this have on other crew members?

    b. What are the common causes of worker fatigue at communication tower worksites?

    c. What are the effects of fatigue on tower worker safety, and what types of incidents occur as a result of worker fatigue?

    21. Other common hazards:

    a. What other hazards are present in communication tower work, and what types of incidents are resulting from those hazards? What can be done to protect employees from those hazards?

    b. What are some health and safety considerations involved in working with communications equipment installed on non-dedicated tower structures, such as water towers, buildings, silos, electrical transmission towers, etc.?

    Contracting and Work Oversight

    22. Describe your role in the contract chain and the key safety-related provisions typically included in your contracts. How do contracting parties oversee or enforce those provisions? What are the consequences if a party fails to fulfill those contractual requirements?

    23. What characteristics of past safety performance does your company use in selecting potential contractors and subcontractors? What safety-related criteria does your company use in this selection process?

    24. Are safety-related factors considered in determining whether to remove a contractor/subcontractor from an ongoing project or from future selection processes? If so, what specific factors are considered?

    25. What are the ways in which the multi-leveled contracting environment (i.e., where entities such as the carrier, tower owner, turfing vendor, subcontractor, and contractors hired by the subcontractor all have some role in the project) impacts employee safety at communication tower worksites?

    26. What practices might companies in the contracting chain adopt to encourage communication and coordination among employers at tower work sites? What obstacles stand in the way of communication and coordination between different parties in the contracting chain?

    Economic Issues

    27. The Agency seeks information on the number and size of firms that are engaged in communication tower work and on the number of employees employed by those firms.

    28. The Agency seeks information about wage and turnover rates for employees who work on communication towers. The Agency is also interested in information about the experience possessed by workers currently doing communication tower work. Are they usually experienced in this type of work? Are there many new or inexperienced employees working on communication towers?

    29. What types of equipment are used in tower work and how often is this equipment repaired and/or replaced?

    30. The Agency seeks information from all employers in the contracting chain about the extent to which employees directly engaged in tower work are covered by workers' compensation and/or an employer liability insurance policy.

    Tower Design

    31. Can towers be designed and built with elevators for lifting personnel or materials? Can towers be built with booms or davits aloft to aid in hoisting materials?

    32. How would elevators or davits affect productivity/efficiency, e.g., the amount of time spent on the tower? How would elevators or davits address or cause any safety hazards at the site? For example, would elevators or davits address hazards related to employee fatigue?

    33. What are the industry standards for providing fall protection anchor points on new towers?

    Regulatory/Non-Regulatory Approaches

    34. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of an OSHA standard that covers both construction and maintenance activities on communication towers?

    35. What effects have the North Carolina and Michigan regulatory approaches had on work practices and climber safety in those states?

    36. Should an OSHA standard be limited to work performed on communication towers, or should it also cover towers used for other purposes?

    37. If OSHA does not initiate a dedicated rulemaking for work on communication towers, what other types of regulatory actions might be necessary and appropriate?

    38. What non-regulatory approaches could OSHA take to address hazards faced by employees working on communication towers?

    Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor. It is issued pursuant to sections 3704 et seq., Public Law 107-217, 116 STAT. 1062 (40 U.S.C. 3704 et seq.); sections 4, 6, and 8, Public Law 91-596, 84 STAT. 1590 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); 29 CFR part 1911; and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (Jan. 25, 2012)).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 27, 2015. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08633 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 372 [EPA-HQ-TRI-2015-0011; FRL-9925-29-OEI] RIN 2025-AA41 Addition of 1-Bromopropane; Community Right-To-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to add 1-bromopropane to the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990. 1-Bromopropane has been classified by the National Toxicology Program in their 13th Report on Carcinogens as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” EPA believes that 1-bromopropane meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria because it can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans. Based on a review of the available production and use information, 1-bromopropane is expected to be manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities that would exceed the EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2015-0011, by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2015-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, avoid any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental Analysis Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access (2842T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0743; fax number: 202-566-0677; email: [email protected], for specific information on this notice. For general information on EPCRA section 313, contact the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346 (select menu option 3) or (703) 412-9810 in Virginia and Alaska or toll free, TDD (800) 553-7672, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/contacts/infocenter/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this notice apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or otherwise use 1-bromopropane. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

    Category Examples of potentially affected entities Industry Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to SIC codes 20 through 39): 311 *, 312 *, 313 *, 314 *, 315 *, 316, 321, 322, 323 *, 324, 325 *, 326 *, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334 *, 335 *, 336, 337 *, 339 *, 111998 *, 211112 *, 212324 *, 212325 *, 212393 *, 212399 *, 488390 *, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140 *, 511191, 511199, 512220, 512230 *, 519130 *, 541712 *, or 811490 *. * Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes. Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113 (correspond to SIC 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299 (correspond to SIC 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122, 221330 (Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (corresponds to SIC 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (corresponds to SIC 4953, Refuse Systems). Federal Government Federal facilities.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Some of the entities listed in the table have exemptions and/or limitations regarding coverage, and other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in part 372 subpart B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    II. Introduction A. What is the statutory authority for this proposed rule?

    This rule is issued under EPCRA section 313(d) and section 328, 42 U.S.C. 11023 et seq. EPCRA is also referred to as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.

    B. What is the background for this action?

    Section 313 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023, requires certain facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in amounts above reporting threshold levels to report their environmental releases and other waste management quantities of such chemicals annually. These facilities must also report pollution prevention and recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to section 6607 of the PPA, 42 U.S.C. 13106. Congress established an initial list of toxic chemicals that comprised 308 individually listed chemicals and 20 chemical categories.

    EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from the list and sets criteria for these actions. EPCRA section 313(d)(2) states that EPA may add a chemical to the list if any of the listing criteria in Section 313(d)(2) are met. Therefore, to add a chemical, EPA must demonstrate that at least one criterion is met, but need not determine whether any other criterion is met. Conversely, to remove a chemical from the list, EPCRA section 313(d)(3) dictates that EPA must demonstrate that none of the listing criteria in Section 313(d)(2)(A) through (C) are met. The EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A) through (C) criteria are:

    • The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels that are reasonably likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases.

    • The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans:

    ○ Cancer or teratogenic effects; or

    ○ Serious or irreversible—

    Reproductive dysfunctions,

    Neurological disorders,

    Heritable genetic mutations; or

    Other chronic health effects.

    • The chemical is known to cause or can be reasonably anticipated to cause, because of:

    ○ Its toxicity;

    ○ Its toxicity and persistence in the environment; or

    ○ Its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment, a significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness, in the judgment of the Administrator, to warrant reporting under this section.

    EPA often refers to the section 313(d)(2)(A) criterion as the “acute human health effects criterion;” the section 313(d)(2)(B) criterion as the “chronic human health effects criterion;” and the section 313(d)(2)(C) criterion as the “environmental effects criterion.”

    EPA published in the Federal Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61432), a statement clarifying its interpretation of the section 313(d)(2) and (d)(3) criteria for modifying the section 313 list of toxic chemicals.

    III. Background Information A. What is the NTP and the report on carcinogens?

    The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is an interagency program within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The mission of the NTP is to evaluate chemicals of public health concern by developing and applying tools of modern toxicology and molecular biology. The NTP program maintains an objective, science-based approach in dealing with critical issues in toxicology and is committed to using the best science available to prioritize, design, conduct, and interpret its studies. The mission of the NTP includes the evaluation of chemicals for their potential to cause cancer in humans.

    As part of their cancer evaluation work, the NTP periodically publishes a Report on Carcinogens (RoC) document. The RoC was mandated by the U.S. Congress, as part of the Public Health Service Act (Section 301(b)(4), as amended). The NTP describes the RoC as an informational scientific and public health document that identifies and discusses agents, substances, mixtures, or exposure circumstances that may pose a hazard to human health by virtue of their carcinogenicity. The NTP RoC serves as a meaningful and useful compilation of data on (1) the carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer), genotoxicity (ability to damage genes), and biologic mechanisms (modes of action in the body) of the RoC-listed substances in humans and/or in animals, (2) the potential for human exposure to these substances, and (3) the regulations and guidelines promulgated by Federal agencies to limit exposures to RoC-listed substances. The NTP RoC is published periodically, with the most recently published 13th RoC having been released on October 2, 2014 (79 FR 60169, October 6, 2014). The 13th RoC contains the NTP cancer classifications from the most recent chemical evaluations, as well as the classifications from previous versions of the RoC (Reference (Ref.) 1).

    B. What are the NTP cancer classifications and criteria?

    The NTP RoC classifies chemicals as either “known to be a human carcinogen” or “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” The criteria that the NTP uses to list an agent, substance, mixture, or exposure circumstance under each classification in the RoC (Ref. 2) are as follows:

    Known To Be Human Carcinogen: There is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans *, which indicates a causal relationship between exposure to the agent, substance, or mixture, and human cancer.

    Reasonably Anticipated To Be Human Carcinogen: There is limited evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans *, which indicates that causal interpretation is credible, but that alternative explanations, such as chance, bias, or confounding factors, could not adequately be excluded, or there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in experimental animals, which indicates there is an increased incidence of malignant and/or a combination of malignant and benign tumors (1) in multiple species or at multiple tissue sites, or (2) by multiple routes of exposure, or (3) to an unusual degree with regard to incidence, site, or type of tumor, or age at onset, or there is less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans or laboratory animals; however, the agent, substance, or mixture belongs to a well-defined, structurally related class of substances whose members are listed in a previous Report on Carcinogens as either known to be a human carcinogen or reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, or there is convincing relevant information that the agent acts through mechanisms indicating it would likely cause cancer in humans.

    Conclusions regarding carcinogenicity in humans or experimental animals are based on scientific judgment, with consideration given to all relevant information. Relevant information includes, but is not limited to, dose response, route of exposure, chemical structure, metabolism, pharmacokinetics, sensitive sub-populations, genetic effects, or other data relating to mechanism of action or factors that may be unique to a given substance. For example, there may be substances for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in laboratory animals, but there are compelling data indicating that the agent acts through mechanisms which do not operate in humans and would therefore not reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

    * This evidence can include traditional cancer epidemiology studies, data from clinical studies, and/or data derived from the study of tissues or cells from humans exposed to the substance in question, which can be useful for evaluating whether a relevant cancer mechanism is operating in humans.

    The NTP classifications for the potential for a chemical to cause cancer are very similar to the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) statutory criteria for listing a chemical on the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313: “(B) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans—(i) cancer . . .” The specific data used by the NTP to classify a chemical as “Known To Be Human Carcinogen” or “Reasonably Anticipated To Be Human Carcinogen” are consistent with data used by EPA to evaluate chemicals for their potential to cause cancer and classify chemicals as either “Carcinogenic to Humans” or “Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans” (Ref. 3).

    C. What is the review process for the RoC?

    Specific details of the nomination and review process for the development of the 13th RoC are described in the Process for Preparation of the Report on Carcinogens section of the 13th RoC (Ref. 4). In general, the RoC review process includes evaluations by scientists from the NTP, other Federal health research and regulatory agencies (including EPA), and nongovernmental institutions. The RoC review process includes external peer review and several opportunities for public comment. For the 13th RoC, during the entire nomination, selection, and review process there were seven opportunities for public comment. For each candidate substance, an expert panel was convened to peer review the NTP monograph document prepared for each candidate substance. The RoC Monograph on 1-Bromopropane consists of the following components: (Part 1) the cancer evaluation component that reviews the relevant scientific information, assesses its quality, applies the RoC listing criteria to the scientific information, and gives the RoC listing status for 1-bromopropane, and (Part 2) the RoC monograph's substance profile containing the NTP's listing status decision, a summary of the scientific evidence considered key to reaching that decision, and data on properties, use, production, exposure, and Federal regulations and guidelines to reduce exposure to 1-bromopropane. The expert panel members had the following major responsibilities in reviewing the draft RoC monograph:

    (1) to comment on the draft cancer evaluation components for 1-bromopropane, specifically, whether they are technically correct and clearly stated, whether the NTP has objectively presented and assessed the scientific evidence, and whether the scientific evidence is adequate for applying the RoC listing criteria, and (2) to comment on the draft substance profile for 1-bromopropane, specifically, whether the scientific justification presented in the substance profile supports the NTP's preliminary policy decision on the RoC listing status of 1-bromopropane. The panel was also asked to vote on the following questions: (1) Whether the scientific evidence supports the NTP's conclusion on the level of evidence for carcinogenicity from experimental animal studies on 1-bromopropane and (2) whether the scientific evidence supports the NTP's preliminary listing decision for 1-bromopropane in the RoC. The panel agreed with the NTP conclusions that 1-bromopropane should be listed in the RoC based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in experimental animals, which found skin tumors in male rats, large intestine tumors in female and male rats, and lung tumors in female mice.” (Ref. 5)

    Based upon the peer-review comments, the Office of the Report on Carcinogens (ORoC) prepared a revised draft RoC Monograph, which was then reviewed by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors. The ORoC, in concert with the NTP Director, then finalized the RoC monographs and submitted the newly reviewed substances to the NTP Executive Committee for consultation. The final draft of the 13th RoC was then submitted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) for review and approval. Once approved, the Secretary submitted the 13th RoC to the U.S. Congress as a final document and published the document on the RoC Web site (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/roc/roc13/index.html). IV. EPA's Review of the 13th RoC A. How did EPA select the NTP RoC chemical being proposed for addition?

    The most recent version of the NTP RoC that EPA previously reviewed for possible additions to the EPCRA section 313 list was the 12th RoC (March 13, 2013, 78 FR 15913). Each new version of the RoC adds newly classified chemicals to the existing list. EPA's present review of the 13th RoC identified 1-bromopropane as the only newly listed chemical that is not on the EPCRA section 313 list.

    EPA reviewed the NTP 13th RoC chemical profile and supporting materials for 1-bromopropane (Ref. 6). Given the extensive scientific reviews conducted by the NTP for their RoC documents, EPA's review focused on ensuring that there were no inconsistencies with how the Agency would consider the available data. EPA's review of the 1-bromopropane chemical profile and supporting material found no inconsistencies between how the data were interpreted by the NTP and how that same data would be interpreted under EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (Ref. 3). Therefore, EPA agrees with the hazard conclusions of the NTP 13th RoC for 1-bromopropane.

    B. What technical data supports the NTP RoC classification and EPA's proposed addition of 1-bromopropane to the EPCRA section 313 list?

    This section presents the data that supported the NTP 13th RoC classification of 1-bromopropane and why EPA believes the data support the addition of this chemical to the EPCRA section 313 list. The RoC 1-Bromopropane Profile document (Ref. 7), the RoC Monograph on 1-Bromopropane (Ref. 5), and the available references cited within the portion of the 13th RoC chemical profile quoted here, are all included in the docket for this rulemaking. While they are contained in the docket and are part of the rulemaking record, the references within the quotation cited below from the 13th RoC 1-Bromopropane Profile document are not included in the list of references in Unit VI. of this Federal Register notice. The full citations for the references contained in the quotation can be found in the NTP 13th RoC 1-Bromopropane Profile document (Ref. 7).

    1. 1-Bromopropane (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number 106-94-5) (Refs. RoC Monograph and Profile documents (Refs. 5 and 7)). The NTP has classified 1-bromopropane as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” The classification is based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The RoC substance profile for 1-bromopropane (Ref. 7) included the following summary information of the evidence of carcinogenicity:

    Carcinogenicity

    1-Bromopropane is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in experimental animals. 1-Bromopropane, either directly or via reactive metabolites, causes molecular alterations that typically are associated with carcinogenesis, including genotoxicity, oxidative stress, and glutathione depletion. These alterations, observed mainly in vitro and in toxicity studies in rodents, are relevant to possible mechanisms of human carcinogenicity and support the relevance of the cancer studies in experimental animals to human carcinogenicity.

    Cancer Studies in Experimental Animals

    Inhalation exposure to 1-bromopropane caused tumors in two rodent species and at several different tissue sites, including one tissue site in rats at which tumors are rare (NTP 2011).

    In male rats, 1-bromopropane caused significant dose-related increases in the incidences of several types of benign and/or malignant skin tumors (keratoacanthoma; keratoacanthoma and squamous-cell carcinoma combined; and keratoacanthoma, squamous-cell carcinoma, basal-cell adenoma, and basal-cell carcinoma combined). Both female and male rats showed an increased incidence of large-intestine tumors (adenoma of the colon and rectum), which are rare tumors in rats. In females, the incidence was dose-related and statistically significantly higher than in concurrent controls, and it exceeded the historical control range for all routes of exposure used in studies, including inhalation exposure. In males, the incidence of large-intestine adenoma was not significantly increased, but exceeded the historical control range for inhalation-exposure studies, and its occurrence was considered to be biologically significant because of the rarity of these tumors (which occurred in less than 0.2% of the historical controls). Although no carcinoma of the large intestine was observed in male or female rats in this study, adenoma of the large intestine has been shown to progress to carcinoma in other studies, and forms a morphologic continuum with carcinoma (Deschner 1983, Chang 1984, Nigro 1985).

    In female mice, 1-bromopropane caused significant dose-related increases in the incidence of benign and malignant lung tumors combined (alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma and carcinoma).

    These findings are supported by the observation of additional tumors in rats that may have been related to 1-bromopropane exposure, including malignant mesothelioma of the abdominal cavity and pancreatic islet tumors in males and skin tumors (squamous-cell papilloma, keratoacanthoma, and basal-cell adenoma or carcinoma) in females.

    Other Relevant Data

    1-Bromopropane is well absorbed following ingestion, inhalation, or dermal exposure. Occupational exposure occurs primarily by inhalation and dermal contact. Unmetabolized 1-bromopropane has been detected in the urine of exposed workers at levels significantly correlated with exposure to 1-bromopropane in air (Kawai et al. 2001, Ichihara et al. 2004).

    1-Bromopropane is metabolized via several pathways; 16 urinary metabolites have been detected in rodents, and several other metabolites have been proposed (Jones and Walsh 1979, Ishidao et al. 2002, Garner et al. 2006). The primary metabolic pathways in rodents are oxidation reactions catalyzed by cytochrome P450 (primarily CYP2E1) and glutathione conjugation. The available data on human metabolism of 1-bromopropane, although limited, suggest that some of its metabolic pathways in humans are similar to those observed in rodents. Four mercapturic conjugates identified in the urine of rodents were also identified in the urine of workers exposed to 1-bromopropane (Hanley et al. 2009). The major metabolite, N-acetyl-S-(n-propyl)-L-cysteine, has been detected in the urine of exposed workers at levels that increased with increasing levels of 1-bromopropane in ambient air (Hanley and Dunn 2006, Valentine et al. 2007, Hanley et al. 2009, 2010). This metabolite is produced in humans by conjugation of 1-bromopropane with glutathione, and that reaction also releases free bromide ions, another useful biomarker for human exposure to 1-bromopropane (Jones and Walsh 1979, Hanley et al. 2006). No studies were identified that tested for the occurrence in humans of the oxidative metabolites that are obligate intermediates to the measured conjugates.

    Studies on Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis

    The mechanism(s) by which 1-bromopropane causes cancer is not known. However, exposure to 1-bromopropane has been shown to cause molecular alterations related to carcinogenicity, including genotoxicity (mutations and DNA damage), oxidative stress, glutathione depletion, and immunomodulation.

    Studies have shown that 1-bromopropane can bind to macromolecules; it formed S-propylcysteine-globin adducts in exposed animals and humans (Valentine et al. 2007). Although 1-bromopropane did not induce mutations in bacteria under standard assay conditions, it did induce mutations in bacteria both with and without exogenous mammalian metabolic activation in the only reported study whose design was appropriate for testing a highly volatile chemical (Barber et al. 1981). It also caused mutations in cultured mammalian cells with or without mammalian metabolic activation (Elf Atochem 1996, as reviewed in NTP 2003) and DNA damage in cultured human cells without metabolic activation (Toraason et al. 2006). In addition, there is limited evidence of DNA damage in leukocytes from 1-bromopropane-exposed workers (Toraason et al. 2006). In rodents exposed in vivo, 1-bromopropane did not increase micronucleus formation in bone marrow (Kim et al. 1998, as reviewed in NTP 2003) or peripheral blood erythrocytes (Elf Atochem 1996, cited in NTP 2003, NTP 2011) or cause dominant lethal mutations. However, the dominant lethal mutation assay is generally regarded as relatively insensitive for the detection of mutagenic agents (Saito-Suzuki et al. 1982, Yu et al. 2008).

    There is evidence that metabolic activation plays a role in the genotoxicity and toxicity of 1-bromopropane. Several reactive metabolites (or intermediates) of 1-bromopropane have been identified in rodents, including glycidol and α-bromohydrin, and propylene oxide has been proposed as a metabolite (Garner et al. 2006). These compounds cause genotoxic effects in vitro, including DNA adduct formation, mutations, and DNA or chromosome damage (Stolzenberg and Hine 1979, IARC 1994, 2000). Glycidol and propylene oxide cause cytogenetic effects in vivo and are carcinogenic in experimental animals, and both substances are listed in the Report on Carcinogens as reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. These reactive and genotoxic metabolites may be responsible for at least some of the carcinogenic effects of 1-bromopropane. As with 1-bromopropane, oral exposure to glycidol caused rare tumors of the large intestine in rats, as did oral exposure to two halogenated alkane analogues of 1-bromopropane, tribromomethane and bromodichloromethane (NTP 1987, 1989, 1990).

    Chronic exposure to 1-bromopropane may produce levels of oxidative metabolites that exceed the glutathione-conjugating capacity or may inhibit enzymes required for glutathione synthesis. Because glutathione is an important cellular defense mechanism, reduced levels can lead to oxidative stress, increased toxicity, and carcinogenicity. Numerous studies have shown that 1-bromopropane induces both oxidative stress and glutathione depletion (Lee et al. 2005, 2007, 2010a, Liu et al. 2009, 2010, Huang et al. 2011). Studies with Cyp2e1-/- knockout mice, cytochrome P450 inhibitors, or a glutathione synthesis inhibitor showed that this metabolic activation pathway is involved in 1-bromopropane-induced toxicity, including neurological and reproductive effects, hepatotoxicity, and immunosuppression (NTP 2003, 2011, Lee et al. 2007, 2010a,b). Neurological effects of 1-bromopropane exposure have also been reported in humans (Li et al. 2010, Ichihara et al. 2012).

    It is unclear whether induction of immunotoxicity by 1-bromopropane plays a role in tumor development. Recent studies have shown that 1-bromopropane causes immunosuppression in rodents (Lee et al. 2007, Anderson et al. 2010). In particular, it reduced the numbers of T cells and T-cell subpopulations. In addition, there is evidence that 1-bromopropane causes an inflammatory response. It induced dose-related increases in gene expression and production of proinflammatory cytokines in mouse macrophages (Han et al. 2008) and an inflammatory response in rats (NTP 2011). However, chronic respiratory inflammation and lung tumors were not associated in rodents; respiratory inflammation occurred in rats but not mice, whereas lung tumors occurred in mice but not rats.

    Cancer Studies in Humans

    No epidemiological studies or case reports were identified that evaluated the relationship between human cancer and exposure specifically to 1-bromopropane.

    EPA has reviewed the NTP assessment for 1-bromopropane and agrees that 1-bromopropane can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans. EPA believes that the evidence is sufficient for listing 1-bromopropane on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available carcinogenicity data for this chemical.

    V. Rationale for Listing

    The NTP RoC document undergoes significant scientific review and public comment. The NTP review mirrors the review EPA has historically done to assess chemicals for listing under EPCRA section 313 on the basis of carcinogenicity. The conclusions regarding the potential for chemicals in the NTP RoC to cause cancer in humans are based on established sound scientific principles. EPA believes that the NTP RoC is an excellent and reliable source of information on the potential for chemicals covered in the NTP RoC to cause cancer in humans (see Unit III). Based on EPA's review of the data contained in the NTP 13th RoC, EPA has determined that 1-bromopropane can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer (Ref. 6). Therefore, EPA believes that the evidence is sufficient for listing 1-bromopropane on the EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical list pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available carcinogenicity data presented in the NTP 13th RoC.

    EPA considers chemicals that can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer to have moderately high to high chronic toxicity. EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to consider exposure for chemicals that are moderately high to highly toxic based on a hazard assessment when determining if a chemical can be added for chronic effects pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) (see 59 FR 61440-61442). Therefore, in accordance with EPA's standard policy on the use of exposure assessments (59 FR 61432), EPA does not believe that an exposure assessment is necessary or appropriate for determining whether 1-bromopropane meets the criteria of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B).

    VI. References

    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2015-0011. The public docket includes information considered by EPA in developing this action, including the documents listed below, which are electronically or physically located in the docket. In addition, interested parties should consult documents that are referenced in the documents that EPA has placed in the docket, regardless of whether these referenced documents are electronically or physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating documents that are referenced in documents that EPA has placed in the docket, but that are not electronically or physically located in the docket, please consult the person listed in the above FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For convenience, the docket also includes all of the Federal Register documents cited in this action.

    1. NTP, 2014. National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition. Released October 2, 2014. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/roc/roc13/index.html) 2. NTP, 2014. National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition, Introduction section. Released October 2, 2014. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 3. USEPA. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 2005. 4. NTP, 2014. National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition, Process for Preparation of the Report on Carcinogens section. Released October 2, 2014. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 5. NTP, 2013. Report on Carcinogens Monograph on 1-Bromopropane. Office of the Report on Carcinogens, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH Publication No. 13-5982, September 25, 2013 6. USEPA, OEI. Memorandum from Jocelyn Hospital, Toxicologist, Analytical Support Branch to Sandra Gaona, Acting Chief, Analytical Support Branch. November 3, 2014. Subject: Review of National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cancer Classification Data for 1-bromopropane. 7. NTP, 2014. National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition, Profile for 1-Bromopropane. Released October 2, 2014. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 8. USEPA, OEI. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to add 1-Bromopropane to the EPCRA Section 313 List of Toxic Chemicals. February 17, 2015. VII. What are the Statutory and Executive Order reviews associated with this action? A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain any new information collection requirements that require additional approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control numbers 2025-0009 and 2050-0078. Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA 313 and PPA 6607 may use either the EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350-1), or the EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350- 2). The Form R must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain other criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an alternative threshold for facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed toxic chemical. A facility that meets the appropriate reporting thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable amount of the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of an alternative manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 million pounds per year of the chemical, provided that certain conditions are met, and submit the Form A instead of the Form R. In addition, respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322, 42 U.S.C. 11042, 40 CFR part 350.

    OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to Forms A and R, supplier notification, and petitions under OMB Control number 2025-0009 (EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 1363) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB Control 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428). As provided in 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.6(a), an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers relevant to EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9, 48 CFR chapter 15, and displayed on the information collection instruments (e.g., forms, instructions).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The Agency has determined that of the 140 entities estimated to be impacted by this action, 136 are small businesses; no small governments or small organizations are expected to be affected by this action. All 136 small businesses affected by this action are estimated to incur annualized cost impacts of less than 1%. Facilities eligible to use Form A (those meeting the appropriate activity threshold which have 500 pounds per year or less of reportable amounts of the chemical) will have a lower burden. Thus, this action is not expected to have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A more detailed analysis of the impacts on small entities is located in EPA's economic analysis support document (Ref. 8).

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531 through 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action is not subject to the requirements of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments are not subject to the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements. EPA's economic analysis indicates that the total cost of this action is estimated to be $531,002 in the first year of reporting (Ref. 8).

    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action relates to toxic chemical reporting under EPCRA section 313, which primarily affects private sector facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. The results of this evaluation are contained below.

    This action does not address any human health or environmental risks and does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action adds an additional chemical to the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements. By adding a chemical to the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of EPCRA, EPA would be providing communities across the United States (including minority populations and low income populations) with access to data which they may use to seek lower exposures and consequently reductions in chemical risks for themselves and their children. This information can also be used by government agencies and others to identify potential problems, set priorities, and take appropriate steps to reduce any potential risks to human health and the environment. Therefore, the informational benefits of the action will have a positive impact on the human health and environmental impacts of minority populations, low-income populations, and children.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 372 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 372—TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING: COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW 1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.

    2. In § 372.65, paragraph (a) is amended by adding in the table the entry for “1-Bromopropane” in alphabetical order and in paragraph (b) by adding in the table the entry for “106-94-5” in numerical order to read as follows:
    § 372.65 Chemicals and chemical categories to which this part applies.

    (a) * * *

    Chemical name CAS No. Effective date *    *    *    *    * 1-Bromopropane 106-94-5 1/1/16 *    *    *    *    *

    (b) * * *

    CAS No. Chemical name Effective date *    *    *    *    * 106-94-5 1-Bromopropane 1/1/16 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2015-08664 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 15-88, RM-11747; DA 15-444] Television Broadcasting Services; Bend, Oregon AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by TDS Broadcasting LLC (“TDS”), the licensee of KOHD, channel 51, Bend, Oregon, requesting the substitution of channel 18 for channel 51 at Bend. While the Commission instituted a freeze on the acceptance of full power television rulemaking petitions requesting channel substitutions in May 2011, it subsequently announced that it would lift the freeze to accept such petitions for rulemaking seeking to relocate from channel 51 pursuant to a voluntary relocation agreement with Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees. TDS has entered into such a voluntary relocation agreement with T-Mobile USA, Inc. and states that operation on channel 18 would remove any potential interference with authorized wireless operations in the adjacent Lower 700 MHZ A Block.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed on or before April 30, 2015, and reply comments on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: F. William LeBeau, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, 800 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joyce Bernstein, [email protected], Media Bureau, (202) 418-1647.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 15-88, adopted April 10, 2015, and released April 10, 2015. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.). To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to [email protected] or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts (other than ex parte presentations exempt under 47 CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing restricted proceedings.

    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television.

    Federal Communications Commission. Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.

    § 73.622 [Amended]
    2. Section 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Oregon, is amended by removing channel 51 at Bend and adding channel 18 at Bend.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08751 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 72 Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

    Title: Computer and Internet Use Supplement to the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS).

    OMB Control Number: 0660-0021.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular submission (Revision of a currently approved collection).

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 54,000 households.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 9,000.

    Needs and Uses: NTIA proposes to add 61 questions to the U.S. Census Bureau's July 2015 CPS to gather reliable data on broadband (also known as high-speed Internet) use by U.S. households. President Obama has established a national goal of universal, affordable broadband access for all Americans.1 To that end, the Administration is working with Congress, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and other stakeholders to develop and advance economic and regulatory policies that foster broadband deployment and adoption. Collecting current, systematic, and comprehensive information on broadband use and non-use by U.S. households is critical to allow policymakers not only to gauge progress made to date, but also to identify problem areas with a specificity that permits carefully targeted and cost-effective responses.

    1See Remarks by President Obama on the State of the Union (Jan. 20, 2015) at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/20/remarks-president-state-union-address-january-20-2015.

    The Census Bureau (“the Bureau”) is widely regarded as a superior collector of data based on its centuries of experience and its scientific methods. Collection of NTIA's requested broadband usage data, moreover, will occur in conjunction with the Bureau's scheduled July 2015 Current Population Survey (CPS), thereby significantly reducing the potential burdens on the Bureau and on surveyed households. Questions on broadband and Internet use have been included in 12 previous CPS surveys.

    The U.S. government has an increasingly pressing need for comprehensive broadband data. The General Accountability Office (GAO), NTIA, and the FCC have issued reports noting the lack of useful broadband adoption data for policymakers, and Congress passed legislation—the Broadband Data Improvement Act in 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009—to address this challenge. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) looks to Census Bureau data as an important input into their inter-country benchmark analyses. Modifying the July CPS to include NTIA's requested broadband data will allow the Commerce Department and NTIA to respond to congressional concerns and directives, and to work with the OECD on its broadband methodologies with more recent data.

    Affected Public: Individuals and households.

    Frequency: Once.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Sections 131, 182, and 193.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08645 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-912] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 10, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (“OTR tires”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).1 The period of review (“POR”) is September 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013. This review covers the following exporters of subject merchandise: Mandatory respondents, Double Coin Holdings Ltd. (“Double Coin”) and Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd./Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd. (collectively, “GTC”), and non-examined respondents Zhongce Rubber Group Company Limited (“Zhongce”), Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. (“Zhongwei”), and Trelleborg Wheel System (Xingtai) China, Co. Ltd. (“Trelleborg”). We continue to find that GTC made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value; that Zhongce and Zhongwei are eligible for separate rates; that Double Coin failed to demonstrate eligibility for separate rate status and thus has been included in the PRC-wide entity, and that Trelleborg had no shipments during the POR. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results” section below.

    1See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 61291 (October 10, 2014) (“Preliminary Results”).

    DATES:

    Effective: April 15, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Medley or Brendan Quinn, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4987 and (202) 482-5848, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On October 10, 2014, the Department published its Preliminary Results of the antidumping duty administrative review of OTR tires from the PRC and invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. We granted parties an extension of time to submit case and rebuttal briefs.2 On December 11, 2014, we received case briefs from Petitioners,3 GTC, and Double Coin. On December 19, 2014, we received a rebuttal brief from Trelleborg. On December 23, 2014, we received rebuttal briefs from Petitioners, GTC, Double Coin, and Zhongce. On December 30, 2014, the Department extended the deadline for the final results until April 8, 2015.4 In accordance with timely requests from parties, on February 25, 2015, the Department held a public hearing.5 We conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).

    2See Letters from the Department titled “2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time for Case Briefs and Rebuttal Briefs,” dated October 31, 2014, and “2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Second Extension of Time for Case Briefs and Rebuttal Briefs,” dated December 5, 2014. See also “2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time for Rebuttal Briefs,” dated December 15, 2014.

    3 Titan Tire Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (collectively, “Petitioners”).

    4See Memorandum titled “Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated December 30, 2014.

    5See Hearing Transcript, filed onto the record by Lisa Dennis Court Reporting on March 25, 2015.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order includes new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to certain exceptions. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.6

    6 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, titled, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China; 2012-2013,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”).7 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    7 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received a no-shipment certification from Trelleborg.8 Consistent with its practice, the Department asked U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to conduct a query on potential shipments made by Trelleborg during the POR; CBP did not provide any evidence that contradicts Trelleborg's claim of no shipments.9 Based on Trelleborg's certification, our analysis of CBP information, and analysis of interested parties' comments, we determine that Trelleborg did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR.10

    8See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 61292.

    9See CBP Message Number 3352302, dated December 18, 2013.

    10See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

    Final Determination of Affiliation and Collapsing

    We continue to find that Double Coin Group Jiangsu Tyre Co., Ltd., Double Coin Group Shanghai Donghai Tyre Co., Ltd., and Double Coin Holdings, Ltd. are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act and should be collapsed together and treated as a single company (collectively, “Double Coin”), pursuant to the criteria laid out in 19 CFR 351.401(f).11

    11See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 61292. No party commented on this issue in their case briefs.

    Separate Rates

    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that GTC, Zhongce, and Zhongwei are eligible for separate-rate status; we also determined that Double Coin was part of the PRC-wide Entity.12 We made no changes to these determinations for the final results.13

    12Id., and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at the “Separate Rates” section.

    13See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1 and 3.

    Rate for Non-Examined Companies Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate

    Normally, the Department's practice is to look for guidance from section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, to assign to separate rate companies that were not individually examined a rate equal to the average of the rates calculated for the individually examined respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on adverse facts available.14 In this case, we found one mandatory respondent, Double Coin, to be part of the PRC-wide entity. The other mandatory respondent, GTC, is receiving a separate rate calculated from its own sales and production data. To determine a rate for the unselected separate rate companies, we find it appropriate to use the margin calculated for GTC, which was also found to be separate from the PRC-wide entity with respect to its export activities, and which rate is not zero or de minimis nor based entirely on facts available. Therefore, we are assigning GTC's calculated margin as the rate assigned to non-examined entities which demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate.

    14See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007).

    PRC-Wide Entity

    Double Coin, one of the companies that the Department selected as a mandatory respondent in this administrative review, failed to demonstrate absence of de facto government control over export activities due to the fact that its controlling shareholder is wholly-owned by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council and the significant level of control this majority shareholder wields over the respondent's Board of Directors.15 As a result, we determine that Double Coin is part of the PRC-wide entity.

    15See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 61292-93 and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at the “Separate Rates” section. See also Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

    Because Double Coin provided the Department with its verified sales and production data, we are able to calculate a margin for an unspecified portion of a single PRC-wide entity, but cannot do so for the remaining unspecified portion of the entity. As the Department must calculate a single margin for the PRC-wide government controlled entity and there is insufficient information on the record with respect to the composition of the PRC-wide entity, as facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act, we calculated a simple average of the previously assigned PRC-wide rate (210.48 percent) 16 and Double Coin's calculated margin (0.14 percent) as the rate applicable to the PRC-wide entity. Accordingly, the Department revised the PRC-wide entity rate to 105.31 percent for these final results.17

    16See Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485, 40489 (July 15, 2008).

    17See Memorandum to the File titled “2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for Double Coin,” dated April 8, 2015 (“Double Coin Final Analysis Memorandum”). See also Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on an analysis of the comments received, we made certain calculation programming changes and revisions to the valuation of certain factors of production. For further details on the changes we made for these final results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. See also Memorandum to the File titled “Final Results of the 2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,” dated April 8, 2015; Memorandum to the File titled “2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd.,” dated April 8, 2015; and Double Coin Final Analysis Memorandum.

    Final Results

    As a result of this administrative review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013:

    18 The PRC-Wide Entity includes Double Coin.

    Exporter Weighted
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd./Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd 11.34 Zhongce Rubber Group Company Limited 11.34 Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd 11.34 PRC-Wide Entity 18 105.31
    Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).19 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    19See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8103 (February 14, 2012) (“NME Antidumping Proceedings”).

    For customers or importers of GTC for which we do not have entered value, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total sales quantity of those same sales.20 For customers or importers of GTC for which we received entered-value information, we have calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment rates based on importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates.21 For the non-examined separate rate companies, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at 11.34 percent. For the PRC-wide entity, including Double Coin, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at 105.31 percent.

    20See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    21Id.

    The Department recently announced a refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases.22 Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the NME-wide rate.

    22See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin identified in the “Final Results” section; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but that received a separate rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate (or exporter-producer chain rate) published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 105.24 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether To Include Double Coin in the PRC-Wide Entity and Adjust the Entity Rate Comment 2: Whether To Assign a Margin to Trelleborg Comment 3: Whether To Assign a Margin to Zhongce Comment 4: Whether To Adjust U.S Prices for Un-refunded Value-Added Tax (“VAT”) Comment 5: Use of Adverse Facts Available in Calculating Double Coin's Margin Comment 6: Use of PT Gajah Tunggal's Financial Statement for the Surrogate Financial Ratio Calculation Comment 7: Surrogate Value (“SV”) for Coal Comment 8: Valuation of Labor Comment 9: Valuation of Domestic Truck Freight Comment 10: Valuation of Electricity Comment 11: Container Weight Used in Ocean Freight and Brokerage and Handling Surrogate Value Calculations Comment 12: Whether To Exclude Certain Ocean Freight Charges When Calculating a Surrogate Value for Ocean Freight Comment 13: Whether To Deflate the Surrogate Value for GTC's Warehouse Costs Comment 14: Whether To Calculate Region-Specific U.S. Delivery Charges for GTC's U.S. Inland Freight Surrogate Value Comment 15: Surrogate Values for GTC's Tackifier Inputs Comment 16: Freight Distance Applied to GTC's Inputs Comment 17: Calculation of Double Coin's Truck Freight and Distance Comment 18: Whether Truck Freight Costs are Over-Counted Comment 19: Surrogate Value for Double Coin's Polyester Cord Inputs Comment 20: Surrogate Values for Double Coin's Cinder and Calcium Oxide By-products Comment 21: Calculation of Double Coin's Warranty Costs Comment 22: Conversion of the Truck Freight Surrogate Value Applied to Double Coin's Coal Consumption Comment 23: Calculation of Credit Costs for Double Coin's Drop-Shipped Sales Comment 24: Calculation of Inventory Carrying Costs for Double Coin's Warehouse Sales Comment 25: Differential Price Calculation Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-08673 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burdens (time and financial resources) are minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed AmeriCorps Child Care Program Information Collection. The AmeriCorps Child Care Benefit Program is available for qualified, active, full-time AmeriCorps State and National, VISTA and NCCC (including FEMA Corps) Members who need the Child Care benefit to serve. Child Care benefits are paid directly to qualified child care providers for all or part of the member's child care costs during their active time of service with AmeriCorps. The information collection is requested of AmeriCorps Members who are applying for the benefit; information collected is used to determine a member's eligibility based upon statutory, regulatory, and program eligibility requirements. In addition, the information collection is requested of the child care providers; information collection is used determine a child care provider's eligibility. Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the ADDRESSES section by June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:

    (1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Attention Jennifer Veazey, Project Manager, Room 9506A; 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525.

    (2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    (3) Electronically through www.regulations.gov.

    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Veazey, (202) 606-6770, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses).

    Background

    The information collection is requested of AmeriCorps Members who are applying for the benefit (or in some cases, member of their households); information collected is used to determine a member's eligibility based upon statutory, regulatory, and program eligibility requirements. In addition, the information collection is requested of the child care providers to determine a child care provider's eligibility to provide the child care service.

    Information is collected via hardcopy and electronically through an online application system.

    Current Action

    CNCS seeks to renew the current AmeriCorps Child Care Application and add four new instruments: The AmeriCorps Member Application, Attendance Sheet, Member Update Form, and Statement of Work Activities.

    The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. The current application is due to expire on 7/31/2015.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: AmeriCorps Child Care Program Forms.

    OMB Number: 3045-0142.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: AmeriCorps Members and Child Care Providers.

    Total Respondents: 1,400 total: 700 AmeriCorps Members and 700 Child Care Providers.

    Frequency: Annual.

    Average Time per Response

    AmeriCorps Member Application: 60 minutes.

    Member Update Form: 5 minutes.

    Statement of Work Activities Form (completed by Member): 10 minutes.

    AmeriCorps Child Care Provider Application: 40 minutes.

    Attendance Sheet (completed by Provider and signed by Member): 20 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,575 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: April 14, 2015. Erin Dahlin, Deputy Chief of Program Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08657 Filed 4-14-15; 08:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board (Board). This meeting is open to the public. For additional information about the Board, please visit the committee's Web site at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/InlandWaterwaysUsersBoard.aspx.

    DATES:

    The Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on May 14, 2015. Public registration will begin at 8:15 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Board meeting will be conducted at the San Luis Resort Hotel and Conference Center, 5222 Seawall Boulevard, Galveston, TX 77551 at 409-744-1500 or 800-445-0090, or http://www.sanluisresort.com.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at [email protected] Alternatively, contact Mr. Kenneth E. Lichtman, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GW, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-8083; and by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The Board is chartered to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on construction and rehabilitation project investments on the commercial navigation features of the inland waterways system of the United States. At this meeting, the Board will receive briefings and presentations regarding the investments, projects and status of the inland waterways system of the United States and conduct discussions and deliberations on those matters. The Board is interested in written and verbal comments from the public relevant to these purposes.

    Proposed Agenda: At this meeting the agenda will include the status of funding for inland navigation projects and studies, the status of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, the status and path forward for the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project, the Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4 Monongahela River Project; status of Chickamauga Lock Project; status of Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock General Re-evaluation Report; an update on the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) Investment Program (Capital Investment Strategy); Lock Performance Monitoring System (LPMS) Data and Reporting Process; and a summary of the Board's advice and recommendations submitted to the Congress regarding the Fiscal Year 2016 President's Budget.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting. A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the May 14, 2015 meeting will be available at the meeting. The final version will be provided at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the Web site after the meeting.

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Registration of members of the public who wish to attend the meeting will begin at 8:15 a.m. on the day of the meeting. Seating is limited and is on a first-to-arrive basis. Attendees will be asked to provide their name, title, affiliation, and contact information to include email address and daytime telephone number at registration. Any interested person may attend the meeting, file written comments or statements with the committee, or make verbal comments from the floor during the public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the committee, as set forth below.

    Special Accommodations: The meeting venue is fully handicap accessible, with wheelchair access. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact Mr. Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Lichtman, the ADFO, at the email addresses or telephone numbers listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Board about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mr. Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Lichtman, the committee ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author's name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO or ADFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the Board for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Board until its next meeting. Please note that because the Board operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

    Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Board meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) business days in advance to the committee DFO or ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The committee DFO and ADFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Board's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO and ADFO.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08561 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Notice To Conduct a Public Meeting for Preparation of a Preliminary Assessment and Dredged Material Management Plan for Petaluma River, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, CA AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Public Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to initiate the scoping process for an evaluation of whether there is adequate capacity at existing placement sites for placement/disposal of projected maintenance dredged material from Petaluma River. This evaluation will be conducted in a two-step process: First a preliminary assessment (PA) will make projections of the volume of dredged material, estimate the existing capacity for placement/disposal of the material, and verify that continued maintenance dredging is economically justified. If the PA concludes that continued maintenance dredging is justified and that the existing placement/disposal capacity is not adequate, then a Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) will be prepared to identify additional placement/disposal sites with adequate capacity for the next 20 years of federal and non-federal maintenance dredging.

    DATES:

    A public meeting will be held on April 30, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. (PDT). Submit comments concerning this project on or before May 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at the Petaluma Community Center, 320 North McDowell Boulevard, Petaluma, CA 94954. Mail written comments concerning this notice to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Engineering and Technical Services Division, ATTN: Roxanne Grillo, 1455 Market Street, 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103-1398. Comment letters should include the commenter's physical mailing address and the project title, Petaluma River federal navigation project, in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roxanne Grillo, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Environmental Section A, 1455 Market Street, 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103-1398, (415) 503-6859, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    If the Corps determines that preparation of a DMMP is necessary, an accompanying Environmental Assessment in accordance will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The primary federal actions under consideration are dredging, dredged material placement/disposal, and transport of dredged material for the purpose of aquatic disposal and/or upland beneficial reuse. The City of Petaluma is the non-federal sponsor (NFS). An Environmental Assessment is intended to be sufficient in scope to address the federal, state and local requirements and environmental issues concerning the proposed activities and permit approvals.

    Project Site and Background Information: The Petaluma River federal navigation project is located on the Northern California coast about 35 miles to the north of San Francisco. It consists of two portions: The Upper Channel that begins in Petaluma City and extends 14 miles to the mouth of Petaluma River at San Pablo Bay (near the Highway 37 Bridge); and the Across the Flats (ATF) portion that continues southeast of the Highway 37 Bridge and extends 5 miles into the deeper water of San Pablo Bay. It is a shallow draft navigation project that supports light commercial and sport fishing, and recreational boating.

    Both the channel width and depth vary throughout the entire length of the federal project. An 8 foot depth is authorized for the five miles of the ATF portion extending into San Pablo Bay (200 foot wide channel) and as far upstream as Western Avenue in the City of Petaluma (100 foot wide channel). This includes a 300 foot by 400 foot turning basin. The channel then reduces to 50 feet wide with a 4 foot depth until the Washington Street Bridge and from there it reduces to a 40 foot width and a 4 foot depth for an additional 935 linear feet.

    Historically, dredged sediment from the Upper Channel was placed at an upland disposal site located downstream of the turning basin. The dredged sediment from the ATF portion has historically been placed at the San Pablo in-bay disposal site SF-10.

    Proposed Action(s): The San Francisco District, US Army Corps of Engineers, is evaluating whether there is sufficient placement/disposal capacity and verifying economic justification to support continued federal and non-federal maintenance dredging over the next 20 years.

    Issues: Potentially significant issues associated with the project may include: air quality emissions, biological resource impacts, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, traffic and transportation, and cumulative impacts from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

    Scoping Process: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is seeking participation and input of all interested federal, state, and local agencies, Native American groups, and other concerned private organizations or individuals through this public notice. The purpose of the public meeting is to solicit comments regarding the potential impacts and environmental issues associated with the proposed action to be considered. A meeting will be held on April 30, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. (PDT). The draft PA is expected to be available for public review and comment in late summer of 2015.

    John C. Morrow, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, District Engineer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08723 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs

    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.305A, 84.305B, 84.305C, 84.305D, 84.305H, 84.305N, 84.324A, and 84.324B.

    DATES:

    The dates when applications are available and the deadlines for transmittal of applications invited under this notice are indicated in the chart at the end of this notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Acting Director of the Institute of Education Sciences (Institute) announces the Institute's FY 2016 competitions for grants to support education research and special education research. The Acting Director takes this action under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. The Institute's purpose in awarding these grants is to provide national leadership in expanding fundamental knowledge and understanding of (1) developmental and school readiness outcomes for infants and toddlers with or at risk for disability, and (2) education outcomes for all students from early childhood education through postsecondary and adult education.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The central purpose of the Institute's research grant programs is to provide interested individuals and the general public with reliable and valid information about education practices that support learning and improve academic achievement and access to education opportunities for all students. These interested individuals include parents, educators, students, researchers, and policymakers. In carrying out its grant programs, the Institute provides support for programs of research in areas of demonstrated national need.

    Competitions in This Notice: The Institute will conduct eight research competitions in FY 2016 through two of its centers:

    The Institute's National Center for Education Research (NCER) will hold six competitions: one competition for education research, one competition for education research training, one competition for education research and development centers, one competition for statistical and research methodology in education, one competition for partnerships and collaborations focused on problems of practice or policy, and one competition for research networks.

    The Institute's National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) will hold two competitions: one competition for special education research and one competition for special education research training.

    NCER Competitions

    The Education Research Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address one of the following ten education research topics:

    • Cognition and Student Learning.

    • Early Learning Programs and Policies.

    • Education Technology.

    • Effective Teachers and Effective Teaching.

    • English Learners.

    • Improving Education Systems: Policies, Organization, Management, and Leadership.

    • Mathematics and Science Education.

    • Postsecondary and Adult Education.

    • Reading and Writing.

    • Social and Behavioral Context for Academic Learning.

    The Research Training Programs in the Education Sciences. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address the following topic:

    • Pathways to the Education Sciences Research Training.

    The Education Research and Development Centers Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address the following topic:

    • Virtual Learning.

    The Statistical and Research Methodology in Education Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address the following topic:

    • Early Career Statistical and Research Methodology Grants.

    Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice or Policy Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address the following topic:

    • Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research.

    The Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address one of the following two topics:

    • Supporting Early Learning from Preschool through Early Elementary Grades.

    • Scalable Strategies to Support College Completion.

    NCSER Competitions

    The Special Education Research Competitions. Under this competition, NCSER will consider only applications that address one of the following eleven topics:

    • Autism Spectrum Disorders.

    • Cognition and Student Learning in Special Education.

    • Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education.

    • Families of Children with Disabilities.

    • Mathematics and Science Education.

    • Professional Development for Teachers and Related Services Providers.

    • Reading, Writing, and Language Development.

    • Social and Behavioral Outcomes to Support Learning.

    • Special Education Policy, Finance, and Systems.

    • Technology for Special Education.

    • Transition Outcomes for Secondary Students with Disabilities.

    The Research Training Programs in Special Education Competition. Under this competition, NCSER will consider only applications that address one of the following three topics:

    • Postdoctoral Research Training Program.

    • Early Career Development and Mentoring.

    • Methods Training Using Single Case Designs.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 9501 et seq.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 77, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. In addition, the regulations in 34 CFR part 75 are applicable, except for the provisions in 34 CFR 75.100, 75.101(b), 75.102, 75.103, 75.105, 75.109(a), 75.200, 75.201, 75.209, 75.210, 75.211, 75.217(a) through (c), 75.219, 75.220, 75.221, 75.222, and 75.230. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

    II. Award Information

    Types of Awards: Discretionary grants and cooperative agreements.

    Fiscal Information: Although Congress has not yet enacted an appropriation for fiscal year 2016, the Institute is inviting applications for these competitions now so that we may give applicants adequate time to prepare their applications. The Department may announce additional topics later in 2015. The actual award of grants will depend on the availability of funds. The size of the awards will depend on the scope of the projects proposed. The number of awards made under each competition will depend on the quality of the applications received for that competition, the availability of funds, and the following limits on awards for specific competitions and topics set by the Institute.

    The Institute may waive any of the following limits on awards for a specific competition or topic in the special case that the peer review process results in a tie between two or more grant applications, making it impossible to adhere to the limits without funding only some of the equally ranked applications. In that case, the Institute may make a larger number of awards to include all applications of the same rank.

    For the NCER's Research Training Programs in the Education Sciences competition, we will award no more than four grants under the Pathways to the Education Sciences Research Training topic.

    For the NCER's Education Research and Development Center competition, we will award no more than one grant under the Virtual Learning topic.

    For the NCER's Statistical and Research Methodology in Education competition, we will award no more than four grants under the Early Career Statistical and Research Methodology Grants topic.

    For the NCER's Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice or Policy competition, we will award no more than five grants under the Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research topic.

    For the NCER's Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice competition, we will award no more than four grants under the Supporting Early Learning from Preschool through Early Elementary Grades topic and no more than four grants under the Scalable Strategies to Support College Completion topic.

    For the NCSER's Research Training Programs in Special Education competition, we will award no more than two grants under the Postdoctoral Research Training topic, no more than five grants under the Early Career Development and Mentoring topic, and no more than one grant under the Methods Training Using Single Case Designs topic.

    The Director of the Institute may change the maximum number of awards per competition through a notice in the Federal Register. Contingent on the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from the FY 2016 competitions.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: Applicants that have the ability and capacity to conduct scientifically valid research are eligible to apply. Eligible applicants include, but are not limited to, nonprofit and for-profit organizations and public and private agencies and institutions, such as colleges and universities.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: These programs do not require cost sharing or matching.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Request for Applications and Other Information: Information regarding program and application requirements for the competitions will be contained in the NCER and NCSER Requests for Applications (RFAs), which will be available on the Institute's Web site at: http://ies.ed.gov/funding/. Each competition will have its own application package.

    RFAs Available: The RFAs for all eight competitions announced in this notice will be available at the Web site listed above on or before April 30, 2015. The dates on which the application packages for these competitions will be available are indicated in the chart at the end of this notice.

    The selection criteria and review procedures for the competitions are contained in the RFAs. The RFAs also include information on the maximum award available under each grant competition. Applications that include proposed budgets higher than the relevant maximum award will not be considered for an award. The Director of the Institute may change the maximum amount through a notice in the Federal Register.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application are contained in the RFA for the specific competition. The forms that must be submitted are in the application package for the specific competition.

    3. Submission Dates and Times: The deadline date for transmittal of applications invited under this notice is indicated in the chart at the end of this notice and in the RFAs for the competitions.

    Application packages for grants under these competitions must be obtained from and submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (www.Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application package electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other Submission Requirements of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice and the chart at the end of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in CFR part 79.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also, note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must: (1) Be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under these competitions must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications

    Applications for grants under the Education Research, Research Training Programs in the Education Sciences, Education Research and Development Centers, Statistical and Research Methodology in Education, the Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice or Policy, Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice, Special Education Research, and Research Training Programs in Special Education competitions, CFDA numbers 84.305A, 84.305B, 84.305C, 84.305D, 84.305H, 84.305N, 84.324A, and 84.324B, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant applications for the Education Research, Special Education Research, Research Training Programs in the Education Sciences, Research Training Programs in Special Education, Education Research and Development Centers, Statistical and Research Methodology in Education, Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice or Policy, and Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice competitions at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for each competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.305, not 84.305A).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for the competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in the relevant RFA for your application.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Ellie Pelaez, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Room 600e, Washington, DC 20208. FAX: (202) 219-1466.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number: [Identify the CFDA number, including suffix letter, for the competition under which you are applying.]), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number: [Identify the CFDA number, including suffix letter, for the competition under which you are applying.]), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are provided in the RFAs.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Special Conditions: Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Grant Administration: Applicants should budget for an annual two-day meeting for project directors to be held in Washington, DC.

    4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under one of the competitions announced in this notice, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    5. Performance Measures: To evaluate the overall success of its education research grant program, the Institute annually assesses the percentage of projects that result in peer-reviewed publications, the number of newly developed or modified interventions with evidence of promise for improving student education outcomes, and the number of Institute-supported interventions with evidence of efficacy in improving student outcomes including school readiness outcomes for young children and student academic outcomes and social and behavioral competencies for school-age students. School readiness outcomes include pre-reading, reading, pre-writing, early mathematics, early science, and social-emotional skills that prepare young children for school. Student academic outcomes include learning and achievement in core academic content areas (reading, writing, math, and science) and outcomes that reflect students' successful progression through the education system (e.g., course and grade completion; high school graduation; postsecondary enrollment, progress, and completion). Social and behavioral competencies include social skills, attitudes, and behaviors that may be important to student's academic and post-academic success. Additional education outcomes for students with or at risk of disability include developmental outcomes for infants and toddlers (birth to age three) with or at risk for a disability pertaining to cognitive, communicative, linguistic, social, emotional, adaptive, functional, or physical development; and developmental and functional outcomes that improve education outcomes, transition to employment, independent living, and postsecondary education for students with disabilities.

    6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in meeting the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has met the performance targets in the grantee's approved application. In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The contact person associated with a particular research competition is listed in the chart at the end of this notice, in the relevant RFA, and in the relevant application package. The date on which applications will be available, the deadline for transmittal of applications, the estimated range of awards, and the project period ranges are also listed in the chart and in the RFAs that are posted at the following Web sites: http://ies.ed.gov/funding/ and www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/programs.html.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the RFA in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the appropriate program contact person listed in the chart at the end of this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Sue Betka, Acting Director, Institute of Education Sciences. CFDA No. and name Application package
  • available
  • Deadline for
  • transmittal of
  • applications
  • Estimated range of awards * Project period For further information
  • contact
  • National Center for Education Research (NCER) 84.305A Education Research May 21, 2015 August 6, 2015 $100,000 to $760,000 Up to 5 years Rebecca McGill-Wilkinson, [email protected] Cognition and Student Learning Early Learning Programs and Policies Education Technology Effective Teachers and Effective Teaching English Learners Improving Education Systems: Policies, Organization, Management, and Leadership Mathematics and Science Education Postsecondary and Adult Education Reading and Writing Social and Behavioral Context for Academic Learning 84.305B Research Training Programs in the Education Sciences May 21, 2015 August 20, 2015 $50,000 to $240,000 Up to 5 years Katina Stapleton, [email protected] Pathways to the Education Sciences Research Training 84.305C Education Research and Development Center Program May 21, 2015 August 20, 2015 $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 Up to 5 years Erin Higgins, [email protected] Virtual Learning 84.305D Statistical and Research Methodology in Education May 21, 2015 August 6, 2015 $40,000 to $100,000 Up to 2 years Phill Gagne, [email protected] Early Career Statistical and Research Methodology Grants 84.305H Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice or Policy May 21, 2015 August 6, 2015 $50,000 to $200,000 Up to 2 years Allen Ruby, [email protected] Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research 84.305N Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice
  • Supporting Early Learning from Preschool through Early Elementary Grades
  • Scalable Strategies to Support College Completion
  • May 21, 2015 August 6, 2015 $500,000—$1,100,000 Up to 5 years Caroline Ebanks (Supporting Early Learning), [email protected]
  • James.Benson (Scalable Strategies), [email protected]
  • National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) 84.324A Special Education Research
  • Autism Spectrum Disorders.
  • May 21, 2015. August 6, 2015 $100,000 to $800,000 Up to 5 years Jacquelyn Buckley, [email protected]
    Cognition and Student Learning in Special Education Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education Families of Children with Disabilities Mathematics and Science Education Professional Development for Teachers and Related Services Providers Reading, Writing, and Language Development Social and Behavioral Outcomes to Support Learning Special Education Policy, Finance, and Systems Technology for Special Education Transition Outcomes for Secondary Students with Disabilities 84.324B Research Training Programs in Special Education
  • Postdoctoral Research Training Program
  • Early Career Development and Mentoring
  • Methods Training Using Single Case Designs
  • May 21, 2015 August 20, 2015 $50,000 to $233,000 Up to 5 years Kristen Rhoads (Postdoctoral and Early Career), [email protected]
  • Robert Ochsendorf (Methods Training), [email protected]
  • * These estimates are annual amounts. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Note: If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08627 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0043] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; National Household Education Survey 2016 (NHES:2016) Full-Scale Data Collection AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences (IES)/National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0043 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E103, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, (202) 502-7411.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: National Household Education Survey 2016 (NHES:2016) Full-scale Data Collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0768.

    Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 187,536.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 30,373.

    Abstract: The National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES). NHES is NCES's principal mechanism for addressing education topics appropriate for households rather than establishments. Such topics cover a wide range of issues, including early childhood care and education, children's readiness for school, parent perceptions of school safety and discipline, before- and after-school activities of school-age children, participation in adult education and training, parent involvement in education, school choice, homeschooling, and civic involvement. The NHES consists of a series of rotating surveys using a two-stage design in which a household screener collects household membership and key characteristics for sampling and then appropriate topical survey(s) are mailed to sample members. Data from the NHES are used to provide national cross-sectional estimates on populations of special interest to education researchers and policymakers. NHES surveys were conducted approximately every other year from 1991 through 2007 using random digit dial (RDD) methodology; beginning in 2012 NHES began collecting data by mail to improve response rates. This submission seeks clearance to conduct NHES:2016, which will repeat the child topical surveys conducted in 2012: the Parent and Family Involvement in Education (PFI) and the Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP), and will include the first adult topical survey in NHES since 2005, the Adult Training and Education Survey (ATES). The adult survey was developed in conjunction with the Interagency Working Group on Expanded Measures of Enrollment and Attainment (GEMEnA) and was pilot tested in the 2014 NHES Feasibility Study.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08634 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Assessment Governing Board Quarterly Board Meeting AGENCY:

    National Assessment Governing Board, U.S. Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a closed teleconference meeting of the National Assessment Governing Board.

    DATES:

    April 15, 2015.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Assessment Governing Board is announcing a teleconference scheduled on April 15, 2015 from 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST to discuss proposed candidates for the vacant position of National Assessment Governing Board Executive Director. Following discussions, the full Board will take action on selection of the final candidate for the position of Executive Director. This notice is being published less than the 15-days due to the urgent need to ensure full Board participation in the selection of a new Executive Director for NAGB.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(1)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

    The teleconference will be closed to the public because it is concerned with recommending applicants for a vacancy. Discussions will require full and frank advice from Governing Board members. This advice will involve professional judgments on the relative merits and qualifications of the proposed candidate and respective work experience. Such personnel matters involve the discussion of information that is of a personal nature, the disclosure of which would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and, therefore, is protected from disclosure by exemptions 2 and 6 of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.

    Minutes of the closed teleconference will be certified by the Board Chairman and retained in the public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Munira Mwalimu, Executive Officer, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20002, telephone: (202) 357-6938, fax: (202) 357-6945.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Statutory Authority and Function: The National Assessment Governing Board is established under Title III—National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act, Public Law 107-279. Information on the Board and its work can be found at www.nagb.gov.

    The Board is established to formulate policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Board's responsibilities include the following: selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment frameworks and specifications, developing appropriate student achievement levels for each grade and subject tested, developing standards and procedures for interstate and national comparisons, improving the form and use of NAEP, developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results, and releasing initial NAEP results to the public. Section 302 (6) of P.L. 107-279 provides the legislative authority for appointment of Governing Board staff.

    Access to Records of the Meeting: Pursuant to FACA requirements, the public may inspect the outcomes of Board action via an announcement of the appointment that will be posted at www.nagb.gov approximately two weeks after the teleconference meeting.

    Electronic Access to this Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Authority:

    Pub. L. 107-279, Title III—National Assessment of Educational Progress § 301 and § 302.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Mary Crovo, Deputy Executive Director, National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), U.S. Department of Education.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08658 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund—Development Grants; Correction AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.411P (Development grants Pre-Application) and 84.411C (Development grants Full Application). SUMMARY:

    On March 30, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 16648) a notice inviting applications for new awards under the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) Development grants. This correction notice changes the deadline date for transmittal of pre-applications from April 29, 2015, to May 5, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective April 15, 2015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 30, 2015 (80 FR 16648), on page 16648, in the middle of the third column under the heading Overview Information, and on page 16656, in the middle of the first column, under 3. Submission Dates and Times, we change the deadline date for transmittal of pre-applications from “April 29, 2015,” to “May 5, 2015.”

    Program Authority:

    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111-5.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4C107, Washington, DC 20202-5930. Telephone: (202) 453-7122. FAX: (202) 205-5631 or by email: [email protected].

    If you use a telecommunications device (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Nadya Chinoy Dabby, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08631 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Agency Information Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for OMB review and comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance, a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection will require annual reports from power companies that voluntarily join the Department's new Partnership for Energy Sector Climate Resilience. The goal of this partnership is for the Department and power company participants to work cooperatively to enhance the energy security of the nation's electricity infrastructure. The annual reports required of partners will include summaries of activities undertaken during the proceeding year including, for example, vulnerability assessments, resilience strategies, information on costs and benefits of actions taken, and best practices. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the department; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information being collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the proposed collection on the respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before May 15, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    And to Dr. Craig Zamuda, U.S. Department of Energy, EPSA-20, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, or by fax 202 586-5345, or by email at [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Craig Zamuda, U.S. Department of Energy, EPSA-20, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, or by fax 202 586-5345, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No:. “New”; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Partnership for Energy Sector Climate Resilience; (3) Type of Request: New collection; (4) Purpose: To enhance the resilience of the nation's power sector to extreme weather and climate change, the Department of Energy is establishing a partnership program with power sector companies. On an annual basis, participating companies are asked to report on activities they have undertaken to improve their resilience to extreme weather and climate change. This information will help facilitate improved resilience throughout the sector and better inform the Department's activities in support of these efforts. (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 25; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 50 (first year, 25 thereafter). (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 212 hours; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $8,959 total program-wide annual costs.

    Statutory Authority: Title XIII of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 calls for a variety of activities to support the modernization of the Nation's electricity transmission and distribution system to maintain a reliable and secure electricity infrastructure. In addition, Executive Orders, 13514 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance) and 13653 (Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change) also set forth a number of activities that would be supported by the information collected under this request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2015. Judith M. Greenwald, Deputy Director, Office of Climate, Environment and Efficiency, Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08643 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-132-000] Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 26, 2015, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River), 2755 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84121, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, requesting authorization to replace 1.56-miles of its 36-inch diameter A-line in Clark County, Nevada with thicker walled pipe to comply with a U.S. Department of Transportation class location change, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director, Certificates, phone: (402) 398-7103, facsimile: (402) 398-7592, or by email at: [email protected] located at Kern River Gas Transmission Company, P.O. Box 3330, Omaha, Nebraska 68103-0330.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and five copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: April 29, 2015.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08551 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14660-000] Cascade Water Alliance: Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On February 4, 2015, the Cascade Water Alliance filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the White River-Lake Tapps Reservoir Ancillary Hydroelectric Project (White River Project or project) to be located on the White River, in Pierce County, Washington. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following existing facilities from a previously licensed project: (1) A 352-foot-long, 4-foot-high rock-filled, timber crib barrier structure with 7-foot-high flashboards; (2) headworks consisting of two slide gates; (3) a 7.75-mile-long flowline from the headworks to Lake Tapps which consists of a concrete flume, five settling basins, a concrete canal, an unlined earthen canal, and two concrete pipes; (4) a fish recovery pond and a fish screen facility along the flowline; (5) a valve house with a new 5 megawatts (MW) turbine/generating unit; (6) a new transmission line from the valve house to a new substation near the valve house; (7) Lake Tapps with a surface area of 2,740 acres and storage capacity of 46,700 acre-feet at elevation 542.5 feet above mean sea level; (8) an intake structure on Lake Tapps; (9) a 12-foot-diamter, 2,842-foot-long concrete lined tunnel; (10) a concrete and steel forebay; (11) four riveted steel penstocks with varying diameters up to 8 feet and lengths up to 1,619 feet; (12) a 225-foot-long, 85-foot-wide, 55-foot-high concrete-framed powerhouse containing an existing 27 MW Francis generating unit and a new 5 MW unit with a total installed capacity of 32 MW; (13) a concrete and timber tailbay; (14) a 3,250-foot-long open channel tailrace; (15) a new 4,181-foot-long, 115-kilovolt transmission line connecting to a nearby substation; and (16) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the project would be 50 gigawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Chuck Clark, Chief Executive Officer, Cascade Water Alliance, 520 112th Avenue NE., Suite 400, Bellevue, Washington 98004; phone: (425) 453-0930.

    FERC Contact: John Matkowski; phone: (202) 502-8576.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14660-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14660) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08649 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-138-000; PF14-8-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 31, 2015, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251-1396 filed an application pursuant to section 7 (c) of the Natural Gas Act requesting authorization to construct and operate its Atlantic Sunrise Project to provide 1,700,002 dekatherms per day of capacity from northern Pennsylvania to Alabama. Specifically, Transco requests authorization to construct (i) 57.3 miles of 30-inch diameter pipeline and 125.2 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline in Pennsylvania; (ii) two new compressor stations totaling 70,000 horsepower (hp) in Pennsylvania; (iii) the addition of 62,000 hp at three existing compressor stations in Pennsylvania and Maryland; and (iv) to modify its existing system to enable north-to-south flow, all as more fully set forth in the application. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Bill Hammons at Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251 or at (713) 215-2130 or Scott Turkington, Director, Rates & Regulatory, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251-1396 or at (713) 215-3391(phone), or [email protected]

    On April 4, 2014, the Commission staff granted Transco's request to utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF14-8-000 to staff activities involving the project. Now, as of the filing of this application on March 31, 2015, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP15-138-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental impact statement (EIS) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EIS for this proposal. The filing of the EIS in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EIS.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: April 29, 2015.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08553 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-44-000] Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC (Complainant) v. PacifiCorp (Respondent); Notice of Amended Complaint

    Take notice that on April 2, 2015, Sage Grouse Energy Project LLC (Sage Grouse) filed an answer in response to PacifiCorp's March 11, 2015 filed answer to complaint and request for waiver; thereby, Sage Grouse amended its original complaint filed on February 9, 2015, as more fully explained in its amendment.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 22, 2015.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08556 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-855-000.

    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (BP37-20) to be effective 4/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150407-5023.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-857-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Expired Agreements Removal to be effective 5/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150407-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-858-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Amendments to Neg Rate Agmts (FPL 41619-3, 41618-5) to be effective 4/7/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150407-5227.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 08, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08535 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 4362-007] Inman Mills; Notice of Termination of License (Minor Project) by Implied Surrender and Soliciting Comments, Protests and Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric proceeding has been initiated by the Commission:

    a. Type of Proceeding: Termination of license by implied surrender.

    b. Project No.: 4362-007.

    c. Date Initiated: April 7, 2015.

    d. Licensee: Inman Mills.

    e. Name and Location of Project: The Riverdale Hydroelectric Project, located on the Enoree River near Enoree, in Spartanburg and Laurens counties, South Carolina.

    f. Filed Pursuant to: Standard Article 16.

    g. Licensee Contact Information: Mr. Keith Woods, Corporate Technical Director Inman Mills, P.O. Box 207, Inman, SC 29439, (864) 472-2121.

    h. FERC Contact: M. Joseph Fayyad, (202) 502-8759, [email protected].

    i. Deadline for filing comments and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. Please file your submittal electronically via the Internet (eFiling) in lieu of paper. Please refer to the instructions on the Commission's Web site under http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp and filing instructions in the Commission's Regulations at 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii). To assist you with eFilings you should refer to the submission guidelines document at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/user-guide.pdf. In addition, certain filing requirements have statutory or regulatory formatting and other instructions. You should refer to a list of these “qualified documents” at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing.pdf. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. Please include the project number (4362-007) on any documents or motions filed. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings; otherwise, you should submit an original and seven copies of any submittal to the following address: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mail Code: DHAC, PJ-12, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    j. Description of Project Facilities: (1) A reinforced concrete dam approximately 14 feet high and 425 feet long; (2) a 9-foot-diameter penstock, approximately 110 feet long; (3) a powerhouse containing one generating Unit with a capacity of 1,240 kW; (4) a reservoir with a surface area of 9 acres at a normal pool elevation of 512 feet, and a gross storage capacity of 22 acre-feet; and (5) appurtenant facilities.

    k. Description of Proceeding: The licensee is in violation of Article 16 of its license, which was granted September 29, 1982 (20 FERC ¶ 62,586). Article 16 states in part: If the Licensee shall abandon or discontinue good faith operation of the project or refuse or neglect to comply with the terms of the license and the lawful orders of the Commission, the Commission will deem it to be the intent of the Licensee to surrender the license.

    Commission records show that the project has not been operational since January 2001 and the licensee (Inman Mills) has failed to retain sufficient rights to operate the project. Inman Mills transferred the property rights to another party without securing an effective transfer approval from the Commission, which is a continuing violation of standard article 5 of the license. The current project license expired on August 31, 2012, and the project remains authorized under an annual license. Inman Mills failed to file a notice of intent to seek a subsequent license, which the Commission deemed as notice that Inman Mills does not intend to file an application for subsequent license. Then on August 31, 2010, Lockhart Power Company, Inc., filed a license application for the project; however, the application was withdrawn on October 1, 2014. On November 26, 2014, staff sent the licensee a letter pursuant to the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 16.26(b), requiring the licensee to file a schedule for the filing of a surrender application for the project license for Commission approval within 90 days from the date of the letter. The letter required that any application must be filed in accordance with 18 CFR 16.8 and Part 6 of the Commission's regulations. The letter stated that if no response is filed, the Commission will take action to terminate license by implied surrender. On February 3, 2015, the licensee filed a response but failed to file a surrender application in accordance with18 CFR 16.8 and Part 6 of the Commission's regulations.

    l. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the Docket number (P-4362-007) excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the notice. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments and Protests—Anyone may submit comments or protests in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211 and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the project number of the proceeding to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting or protesting; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. All comments, protests, or motions to intervene should relate to project works which are the subject of the termination of license. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the licensee specified in item “g” above. A copy of all other filings in reference to this notice must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    p. Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described proceeding. If any agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08559 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-58-000] Louisiana Generating LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 7, 2015, Louisiana Generating LLC, pursuant to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.'s FERC Electric Tariff Schedule 24 and Schedule 24-A, submitted a request to recover costs associated with acting as a Local Balancing Authority, which includes expenses for providing transmission services related to load dispatching, scheduling and system control for the year ending December 31, 2014.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 28, 2015.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08557 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD15-7-000] Reliability Technical Conference; Notice of Technical Conference

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a Technical Conference on Thursday, June 4, 2015 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.. This Commissioner-led conference will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The conference will be open for the public to attend. Advance registration is not required, but is encouraged. Attendees may register at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-04-15-form.asp.

    The purpose of the conference is to discuss policy issues related to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. A more formal agenda will be issued at a later date.

    Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The conference will also be Webcast. Anyone with Internet access who desires to listen to this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to the webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for webcasts and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call 703-993-3100.

    This conference will also be transcribed. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the transcript for a fee by contacting Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. at (202) 347-3700.

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For more information about this conference, please contact: Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8368, [email protected]

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08646 Filed 4-14-15; 08:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CD15-21-000] North Gooding Main Hydro LLC; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On March 24, 2015, the North Gooding Main Hydro LLC filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed North Gooding Main Hydroelectric Project would have an installed capacity of 1,220 kilowatts (kW) and would be located on the existing North Gooding Main Canal, which transports water for agricultural consumption. The project would be located near the Town of Gooding in Lincoln County, Idaho.

    Applicant Contact: Nicholas E. Josten, North Gooding Main Hydro LLC, 2742 St. Charles Ave., Idaho Falls, ID 83404, (208) 522-8069 or (208) 528-6152

    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No. (202) 502-6062, email: [email protected].

    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed project would consist of: (1) A proposed intake gate structure; (2) a proposed 1,600-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 8-foot-deep feeder canal; (3) a proposed 1,010-foot-long, 10-foot-diameter steel penstock; (4) a proposed 35- by 45-foot powerhouse that contains one turbine-generator unit with a total installed capacity of 1,220 kW; (5) a proposed 200-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 8-foot-deep discharge bay; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of 4,440 megawatt-hours.

    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

    Table 1—Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Statutory provision Description Satisfies
  • (Y/N)
  • FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA Y

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.

    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.

    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the “COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.

    1 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2014).

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD15-21-000) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected]. For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08555 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC-15-5-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-552); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-552, Annual Report of Natural Gas Transactions.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC-15-5-000) by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Please reference the specific collection number and/or title in your comments.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-552 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    FERC-552, Annual Report of Natural Gas Transactions

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0242.

    Abstract: The Commission uses the information collected within the FERC-552 to provide greater transparency concerning the use of indices to price natural gas and how well index prices reflect market forces. The collection also includes transactions that contribute to, or may contribute to natural gas price indices. Many market participants rely on indices as a way to reference market prices without taking on the risks of active trading.

    FERC-552 had its genesis in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 1 , which added section 23 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Section 23 of the NGA, among other things, directs the Commission “to facilitate price transparency in markets for the sale or transportation of physical natural gas in interstate commerce, having due regard for the public interest, the integrity of those markets, and the protection of consumers.” 2

    1 Pub. L. 109-58.

    2 15 U.S.C. 717t-2.

    Type of Respondents: Wholesale natural gas market participants

    Estimate of Annual Burden:3 The Commission estimates the total Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:

    3 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3(b)(1).

    FERC-552—Annual Report of Natural Gas Transactions Number of
  • respondents 6
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden hours per response
  • Estimated total annual burden
    (A) (B) (A) × (B) = (C) (D) (C) × (D) Wholesale natural market participants 666 1 666 10 6,660

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $478,652 [6,660 hours ÷ 2,080 4 hours/year = 3.201923 * $149,489/year 5 = $478,652].

    4 2,080 hours = 40 hours/week * 52 weeks (1 year).

    5 Average annual salary per FERC employee in 2015. We are using FERC cost (salary and benefits) as it fairly reflects an estimate for the industry cost.

    6Number of respondents as of the 2013 Form 552 survey.

    The estimated annual cost of filing the FERC-552 per response is $719 [$478,652 ÷ 666 responses = $719/response]

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08648 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER15-861-000; EL15-53-000] California Independent System Operator Corporation; Supplemental Notice Concerning Post Technical Conference Comments

    By order issued in this proceeding on March 16, 2015,1 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission directed its staff to convene a technical conference to develop a record regarding issues related to imbalance energy price spikes experienced in PacifiCorp's balancing authority areas subsequent to PacifiCorp's full activation in the California Independent System Operator Corporation's Energy Imbalance Market, and to facilitate the development of a long-term solution. Parties wishing to file post-technical conference comments should do so on or before April 23, 2015.

    1Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 150 FERC ¶ 61,191 (2015).

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08558 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign Utility Company Status Old Mill Solar, L.L.C EG15-36-000 Joliet Battery Storage LLC EG15-38-000 West Chicago Battery Storage LLC EG15-39-000 Baffin Wind LLC EG15-40-000 RE Barren Ridge 1 LLC EG15-41-000 RE Tranquillity LLC EG15-42-000 RE Roserock LLC EG15-43-000 Malaga Power, LLC EG15-44-000 Goshen Wind, LP FC15-5-000

    Take notice that during the month of March 2015, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08554 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-133-000] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 27, 2015, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to sections 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authority to abandon by sale to Mountaineer Gas Company certain natural gas facilities located in Cabell and Putnam Counties West Virginia. Specifically, Columbia requests authority to abandon by sale approximately 16.15 miles of its Line SM-108 and associated apprutences as well as the service currently provided through the facilities. Additionally, Columbia requests that the Commission find the facilities, once sold, exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to section 1(b) of the NGA.

    This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to counsel for Columbia, Tyler R. Brown, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission LLC, 5151 San Felipe Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056 by telephone at (713) 386-3797 or by email at [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: April 29, 2015.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08552 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. PF15-10-000; PF15-11-000] NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Nexus Gas Transmission Project and Texas Eastern Appalachian Lease Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the NEXUS Gas Transmission (NEXUS) Project and Texas Eastern Appalachian Lease (TEAL) Project involving construction and operation of facilities by NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC (NEXUS) in Ohio and Michigan and Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Ohio. The projects are separate, but connected, interstate natural gas transmission pipeline projects. The environmental impacts of both projects will be considered in one EIS, which will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the NEXUS and TEAL Projects are in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the projects. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. We 1 ask you to focus your comments on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please note that the scoping period will close on May 22, 2015.

    1 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. If you sent comments on the NEXUS or TEAL Projects to the Commission before the opening of the dockets on January 9 and 26, 2015, respectively, you will need to file those comments under Docket No. PF15-10-000 or PF15-11-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend any of the public scoping meetings scheduled as follows:

    Date and time Location Tuesday April 28, 2015, 6:00 p.m Midview Middle School, 12865 Grafton Road, Grafton, OH 44044, (404) 748-5331. Wednesday April 29, 2015, 6:00 p.m Wadsworth High School, 625 Broad Street, Wadsworth, OH 44281, (330) 335-1400, x5. Thursday April 30, 2015, 6:00 p.m Louisville High School, 1201 S. Nickelplate, Louisville, OH 44641, (330) 875-1438. Tuesday May 5, 2015, 6:00 p.m Tecumseh Center for the Arts, 400 North Maumee, Tecumseh, MI 49286, (517) 423-6617. Wednesday May 6, 2015, 6:00 p.m Swanton High School, 601 North Main Street, Swanton, OH 43558, (419) 826-3045, x1. Thursday May 7, 2015, 6:00 p.m Fremont Ross High School, 1100 North Street, Fremont, OH 43420, (419) 334-5434.

    We will begin our sign up of speakers at 5 p.m. The scoping meetings will begin at 6 p.m. with a presentation by Commission staff on our environmental review process, after which speakers will be called. The meeting will end once all speakers have provided their comments or at 10 p.m., whichever comes first. Please note that there may be a time limit of three minutes to present comments, and speakers should structure their comments accordingly. If time limits are implemented, they will be strictly enforced to ensure that as many individuals as possible are given an opportunity to comment. The meetings are recorded by a stenographer to ensure comments are accurately recorded. Transcripts will be entered into the formal record of the Commission proceeding. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally at the scoping meeting.

    NEXUS and/or Texas Eastern representatives will be present one hour prior to the start of the scoping meetings to provide additional information about the projects and answer questions.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the NEXUS and TEAL Projects. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    NEXUS and/or Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

    Summary of the Planned Projects

    NEXUS and Texas Eastern plan to construct and operate about 256 miles of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline and associated facilities in Ohio and Michigan. The general location of the NEXUS and TEAL Projects are shown in Appendix 1.2

    2 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    NEXUS is proposing to construct the following Project components:

    • About 200 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Columbiana, Stark, Summit, Wayne, Medina, Loraine, Erie, Sandusky, Wood, Lucas, and Fulton counties, Ohio;

    • about 50 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Lenawee, Monroe, and Washtenaw counties, Michigan;

    • about 1.2 miles of new 36-inch-diameter interconnecting pipeline 3 in Columbiana and Carroll counties, Ohio;

    3 An interconnecting pipeline is a shorter pipeline that connects one natural pipeline system to another natural gas pipeline system or a customer.

    • about 0.2 mile of new 30-inch diameter interconnecting pipeline in Columbiana County, Ohio;

    • installation of up to130,000 horsepower (hp) of compression at four new gas turbine compressor stations, one each in Columbiana, Medina, Sandusky, and Lucas counties, Ohio;

    • a total of 4 metering and regulation stations, three in Columbiana County, Ohio and one in Washtenaw County, Michigan; and

    • various launchers, receivers, mainline valves, and other appurtenant facilities at assorted locations along the planned system in Ohio and Michigan.

    Texas Eastern is proposing to construct the following Project components:

    • About 4.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas loop pipeline 4 in Monroe County, Ohio;

    4 A loop pipeline is a pipeline that is constructed adjacent to another pipeline and is connected to it at both ends.

    • one new compressor station with 18,800 hp in Columbiana County, Ohio;

    • additional 9,400 hp of compression and piping modifications at one existing compressor station (Colerain Compressor Station) in Belmont County, Ohio; and

    • launchers, receivers, and various piping modifications at 2 existing regulating and receiver sites in Monroe County, Ohio.

    According to the applicants, the projects would provide up to 1.5 million dekatherms per day of natural gas to various markets in the U.S. Midwest and Canada. The Project would tie into existing infrastructure and include capacity on existing pipeline systems to serve customers in Ohio and Michigan, as well as customers in Illinois (the Chicago area) and Ontario, Canada (the Dawn area). If approved, NEXUS and Texas Eastern propose to commence construction in the first quarter 2017 and place facilities in service on November 1, 2017.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 3,200 acres of land for the pipeline and aboveground facilities. The typical construction right-of-way for pipeline facilities would be 100 feet wide, with additional workspace needed in some locations due to site-specific conditions. Following construction, the applicants would maintain about 1,600 acres for permanent operation of the Project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 60 percent of the pipeline route parallels existing utility rights-of-way. Land affected by construction but not required for operation would generally be allowed to revert to former uses.

    The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.

    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned projects under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • migratory birds and endangered and threatened species;

    • land use and cumulative impacts;

    • socioeconomics;

    • cultural resources;

    • air quality and noise; and

    • public safety.

    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned projects or portions of the projects, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    Although no formal applications have been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.

    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 7.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to these projects to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.5 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice. Currently, no agencies have expressed their intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS.

    5 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Ohio and Michigan State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.6 We will define the Project-specific Area of Potential Effects in consultation with the SHPOs as the Project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the Area of Potential Effects at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, meter stations, and access roads). Our EIS for these projects will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    6 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by NEXUS and Texas Eastern. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis:

    • Impacts on residents and property values in close proximity to the planned pipeline and compressor station sites, including the exercise of eminent domain and future land use restrictions;

    • impacts on agricultural land, particularly from constructing across drain-tiled land;

    • impacts on surface water resources including springs, seeps, and wetlands;

    • impacts on groundwater resources and wells;

    • impacts on threatened, endangered, and candidate species (including the Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, and eastern massasauga) and other sensitive species (including the eastern hellbender);

    • safety issues, such as construction and operation of the planned facilities near existing residences, schools, and businesses;

    • socioeconomic issues, such as job creation; and

    • alternatives, including routing to avoid or minimize impacts on Oak Openings, fruit farms, a Girl Scout Camp, soccer fields used by the Green Soccer Association, and a southern route to avoid residential areas in and around the City of Green, Ohio.

    Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before the end of the scoping period, which will close on May 22, 2015. This is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the Environmental Review Process flow chart in Appendix 2.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the appropriate project docket number(s) (PF15-10-000 for the NEXUS Project or PF15-11-000 for the TEAL Project) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the projects. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned projects.

    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 3).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once NEXUS and Texas Eastern file applications with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the Project.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF15-10 or PF15-11). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08560 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0022; FRL-9924-89] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected] The mailing address is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each application summary.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    1. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-811; 100-1317. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0180. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409. Active ingredient: Cyprodinil. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Nut, tree, group 14-12, except almond, except pistachio. Contact: RD.

    2. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-791; 100-799. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0014. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409. Active ingredient: Mefenoxam. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Rapeseed crop subgroup 20A. Contact: RD.

    3. EPA Registration Numbers: 4787-55; 4787-61; 67760-75. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0179. Applicant: Cheminova A/S, c/o Cheminova, Inc., 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22209-2510. Active ingredient: Flutriafol. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Hops, dried cones. Contact: RD.

    4. EPA Registration Numbers: 10163-6414 and 10163-6415. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0922. Applicant: Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366. Active ingredient: Zoxamide. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Ginseng, Tomato Subgroup 8-10A, Small Fruit Vine Climbing except fuzzy kiwifruit Subgroup 13-07F, and Tuberous and Corm Subgroup 1C. Contact: RD.

    5. EPA Registration Numbers: 66222-35 and 11678-57. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0232. Applicant: Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc., 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604. Active ingredient: Novaluron. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Avocado; Carrot; Succulent Bean; Vegetable, Fruiting, Crop Group 8-10; Fruit, Pome, Crop Group 11-10; Cherry Subgroup 12-12A; Peach Subgroup 12-12B; and Plum Subgroup 12-12C. Revisions to the Label to Include Uses on Greenhouse-Grown Cucumber. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: April 2, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08478 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0219, FRL-9926-35-OSWER] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors; Renewal AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Hazardous Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE) (Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 1773.11, OMB Control No. 2050-0171) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2015. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0171, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Sager, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (mail code 5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-7256; fax number: 703-308-0514; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. Hazardous waste combustors include: hazardous waste incinerators, hazardous waste cement kilns, hazardous waste lightweight aggregate kilns, hazardous waste solid fuel boilers, hazardous waste liquid fuel boilers, and hazardous waste hydrochloric acid production furnaces. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report of any physical or operational changes, notification of exceedances, notification of performance test and continuous monitoring system evaluation, notification of intent to comply, notification of compliance, notification if the owner or operator elects to comply with alternative requirements, initial performance tests, and periodic reports and results.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Business or other for-profit as well as State, Local, or Tribal governments.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE).

    Estimated number of respondents: 192.

    Frequency of response: Occasionally.

    Total estimated burden: 142,447 Hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $4,392,804, which includes $340,955 annualized labor costs and $4,051,849 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay substantially the same.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08661 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [Notice 2015-07] Filing Dates for the Illinois Special Elections in the 18th Congressional District AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing dates for special elections.

    SUMMARY:

    Illinois has scheduled special elections on June 8, 2015, and July 24, 2015, to fill the U.S. House of Representative seat in the 18th Congressional District vacated by Representative Aaron Schock.

    Committees required to file reports in connection with the Special Primary Election on June 8, 2015, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report. Committees required to file reports in connection with both the Special Primary and the Special General Election on July 24, 2015, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report, 12-day Pre-General Report and a Post-General Report.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Principal Campaign Committees

    All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Illinois Special Primary and Special General Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on May 27, 2015; a 12-day Pre-General Report on July 12, 2015; and a Post-General Report on August 23, 2015. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

    All principal campaign committees of candidates participating only in the Special Primary Election shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on May 27, 2015. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

    Unauthorized Committees (PACs and Party Committees)

    Political committees filing on a semi-annual basis in 2015 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Illinois Special Primary or Special General Elections by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

    Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Illinois Special Primary or Special General Elections will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.

    Additional disclosure information in connection with the Illinois Special Elections may be found on the FEC Web site at http://www.fec.gov/info/report_dates.shtml.

    Disclosure of Lobbyist Bundling Activity

    Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,600 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).

    Calendar of Reporting Dates for Illinois Special Elections Report Close of books 1 Reg./cert. & overnight mailing deadline Deadline filing Quarterly Filing Campaign Committees Involved in Only the Special Primary (06/08/15) Must File: Pre-Primary 05/19/15 05/24/15 2 05/27/15 July Quarterly 06/30/15 07/15/15 07/15/15 Semi-Annual Filing Committees Involved in Only the Special Primary (06/08/15) Must File: Pre-Primary 05/19/15 05/24/15 2 05/27/15 Mid-Year 06/30/15 07/31/15 07/31/15 Quarterly Filing Campaign Committees Involved in Both the Special Primary (06/08/15) and Special General (07/24/15) MUST FILE: Pre-Primary 05/19/15 05/24/15 2 05/27/15 Pre-General 07/04/15 07/09/15 07/12/15 3 July Quarterly —WAIVED— Post-General 08/13/15 08/23/15 08/23/15 3 October Quarterly 09/30/15 10/15/15 10/15/15 Semi-Annual Filing Committees Involved in Both the Special Primary (06/08/15) and Special General (07/24/15) Must File: Pre-Primary 05/19/15 05/24/15 2 05/27/15 Pre-General & Mid-Year 4 07/04/15 07/09/15 07/12/15 3 Post-General 08/13/15 08/23/15 08/23/15 3 Quarterly Filing Campaign Committees Involved in Only the Special General (07/24/15) Must File: Pre-General 07/04/15 07/09/15 07/12/15 3 July Quarterly —WAIVED— Post-General 08/13/15 08/23/15 08/23/15 3 October Quarterly 09/30/15 10/15/15 10/15/15 Semi-Annual Filing Committees Involved in Only the Special General (07/24/15) Must File: Pre-General & Mid-Year 4 07/04/15 07/09/15 07/12/15 3 Post-General 08/13/15 08/23/15 08/23/15 3 1 The reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred before the committee registered as a political committee up through the close of books for the first report due. 2 Notice that the registered/certified & overnight mailing deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday. The report should be postmarked before that date. 3 Notice that this filing deadline falls on a weekend. Filing deadlines are not extended when they fall on nonworking days. Accordingly, reports filed by methods other than Registered, Certified or Overnight Mail or electronically, must be received before the Commission's close of business on the last business day before the deadline. 4 Committees will file a consolidated Pre-General and Mid-Year Report by the filing date of the Pre-General Report. Dated: April 8, 2015.

    On behalf of the Commission.

    Ann M. Ravel, Chair, Federal Election Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08564 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected].

    Agreement No.: 010979-061.

    Title: Caribbean Shipowners Association.

    Parties: CMA CGM, S.A.; Crowley Caribbean Services LLC; Hybur Ltd.; King Ocean Services Limited; Seaboard Marine, Ltd.; Seafreight Line, Ltd.; Tropical Shipping and Construction Company Limited; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor, 1627 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes U.S. Lines Limited as a party to the agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012234-001.

    Title: NYKCool/Trans Global Shipping Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: NYKCool AB and Trans Global Shipping NV.

    Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1627 I Street NW., Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006.

    Synopsis: The amendment changes the name of NYKCool AB to Cool Carriers AB and makes related conforming changes.

    Agreement No.: 012235-001.

    Title: NYKCool/Trans Global Shipping/CSVV West Coast Agreement.

    Parties: CSAV Sud Americana de Vapores S.A.; Cool Carriers AB; and Trans Global Shipping NV.

    Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1627 I Street NW., Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006.

    Synopsis: The amendment changes the name of NYKCool AB to Cool Carriers AB and makes related conforming changes.

    Agreement No.: 012326.

    Title: CSCL/HSD Slot Charter Agreement

    Parties: China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd. and China Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. (acting as a single party); and Hamburg Sud.

    Filing Party: Patricia M. O'Neill; Blank & Rome LLP; 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes Hamburg Sud to charter slots on services operated by CSCL in the trade between China and Korea, on the one hand, and the U.S. West Coast on the other hand.

    Agreement No.: 012327.

    Title: “K” Line/WHL/WHS/PIL Space Charter and Sailing Agreement

    Parties: Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) PTE Ltd.; Wan Hai Lines Ltd.; Pacific International Lines (PTE) Ltd.

    Filing Party: Eric. C. Jeffrey, Esq.; Nixon Peabody LLP; 401 9th Street NW, Suite 900; Washington, DC 20004.

    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes the parties to operate a joint service in the trade between the U.S. West Coast on the one hand, and China (including Hong Kong) and Japan on the other hand.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08644 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 30, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Christian David Heitzman, Minneapolis, Minnesota, to retain 25 percent or more of the shares of First BancShares, Inc., of Cold Spring, Cold Spring, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain control of Granite Community Bank, Cold Spring, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 9, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08623 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Annual Reporting Requirements for the Older American Act Title VI Grant Program AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration on Aging Office (AoA), within the Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed extension of an existing collection of information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection requirements relating to Performance Reports for Title VI grants.

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to: [email protected] Submit written comments on the collection of information to Cynthia Lacounte, ACL/Administration on Aging, Washington, DC 20201 or by fax at (202-357-3560).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Graves at (202) 357-3502 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency request or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, ACL/AoA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, ACL/AoA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of ACL/AoA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of ACL/AoA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. ACL/AoA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: Annual submission of the Program Performance Reports are due 90 days after the end of the budget period and final project period.

    Respondents: Federally Recognized Tribes, Tribal and Native Hawaiian Organizations receiving grants under Title VI, Part A, Grants for Native Americans; Title VI, Part B, Native Hawaiian Program and Title VI, Part C, Native American Caregiver Support Program.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 266.

    Total Estimated Burden Hours: 731.5.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08654 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-E-0688] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; AUBAGIO—Patent No. 5,679,709 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for AUBAGIO and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Campus Rm. 3180, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-7900.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product AUBAGIO (teriflunomide). AUBAGIO is indicated for treatment of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for AUBAGIO (U.S. Patent No. 5,679,709) from sanofi-aventis Deutschland GMBH, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 31, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of AUBAGIO represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for AUBAGIO is 2,940 days. Of this time, 2,542 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 398 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: August 27, 2004. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on August 27, 2004.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: August 12, 2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for AUBAGIO (NDA 202992) was submitted on August 12, 2011.

    3. The date the application was approved: September 12, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 202992 was approved on September 12, 2012.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 5 years of patent term extension.

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by June 15, 2015. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by October 13, 2015. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written or electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

    Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08615 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-E-0687] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; AUBAGIO—Patent No. 6,794,410 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for AUBAGIO and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Campus, Rm. 3180, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-7900.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product AUBAGIO (teriflunomide). AUBAGIO is indicated for treatment of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for AUBAGIO (U.S. Patent No. 6,794,410) from Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 31, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of AUBAGIO represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for AUBAGIO is 2,940 days. Of this time, 2,542 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 398 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: August 27, 2004. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on August 27, 2004.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: August 12, 2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for AUBAGIO (NDA 202992) was submitted on August 12, 2011.

    3. The date the application was approved: September 12, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 202992 was approved on September 12, 2012.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,625 days of patent term extension.

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by June 15, 2015. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by October 13, 2015. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written or electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08616 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0543] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Waiver of In Vivo Demonstration of Bioequivalence of Animal Drugs in Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form Products and Type A Medicated Articles AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected]. All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0575. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Waiver of In Vivo Demonstration of Bioequivalence of Animal Drugs in Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form Products and Type A Medicated Articles—21 CFR 514.1(b)(7-8) (OMB Control Number 0910-0575)—Extension

    The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) issued guidance for industry (GFI) #171 entitled “Waivers of In Vivo Demonstration of Bioequivalence of Animal Drugs in Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form Products and Type A Medicated Articles” to describe the procedures that the Agency recommends for the review of requests for waiver of in vivo demonstration of bioequivalence for generic soluble powder oral dosage form products and Type A medicated articles.

    The Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Registration Act (GADPTRA) of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-670) permitted generic animal drug manufacturers to copy those pioneer animal drug products that were no longer subject to patent or other marketing exclusivity protection. The approval for marketing these generic products is based, in part, upon a demonstration of bioequivalence between the generic product and pioneer product. This guidance clarifies circumstances under which FDA believes the demonstration of bioequivalence required by the statute does not need to be established on the basis of in vivo studies for soluble powder oral dosage form products and Type A medicated articles. The data submitted in support of the waiver request are necessary to validate the waiver decision. The requirement to establish bioequivalence through in vivo studies (blood level bioequivalence or clinical endpoint bioequivalence) may be waived for soluble powder oral dosage form products or Type A medicated articles in either of two alternative ways. A biowaiver may be granted if it can be shown that the generic soluble powder oral dosage form product or Type A medicated article contains the same active and inactive ingredient(s) and is produced using the same manufacturing processes as the approved comparator product or article. Alternatively, a biowaiver may be granted without direct comparison to the pioneer product's formulation and manufacturing process if it can be shown that the active pharmaceutical ingredient(s) (API) is the same as the pioneer product, is soluble, and that there are no ingredients in the formulation likely to cause adverse pharmacologic effects. For the purpose of evaluating soluble powder oral dosage form products and Type A medicated articles, solubility can be demonstrated in one of two ways: “USP definition” approach or “Dosage adjusted” approach. The respondents for this collection of information are pharmaceutical companies manufacturing animal drugs. FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows in Tables 1 and 2 of this document. The source of the above data is records of generic drug applications over the past 10 years.

    In the Federal Register of January 12, 2015 (80 FR 1506), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. One comment was received, however it did not respond to any of the four information collection topics solicited and is therefore not addressed by the Agency.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Water Soluble Powders 1 CVM Guidance for industry #171 Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Same formulation/manufacturing process approach 1 1 1 5 5 Same API/solubility approach 5 5 5 10 50 Total 55 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Type A Medicated Articles 1 CVM Guidance for industry #171 Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Same formulation/manufacturing process approach 2 2 2 5 10 Same API/solubility approach 10 10 10 20 200 Total 210 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: April 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08635 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2347] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food and Cosmetic Export Certificate Application Process AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-NEW and title “Food and Cosmetic Export Certificate Application Process (21 U.S.C. 381(e)).” Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Road; COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Food and Cosmetic Export Certificate Application Process (21 U.S.C. 381(e)) (OMB Control Number 0910-NEW)

    Some foreign countries require manufacturers of FDA-regulated products to provide an export certificate for the products they wish to export to that country. A Certificate of Free Sale is a certificate (not pertaining to a particular production lot or export consignment) that indicates that the particular product is marketed in the United States or eligible for export, and that the particular manufacturer has no unresolved enforcement actions pending before or taken by FDA. FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) issues such certificates for food, food additives, seafood, dietary supplements, and cosmetics. Interested persons may request a certificate by using the electronic CFSAN Certificate Application Process, which is part of FDA Unified Registration and Listing System, or by submitting a paper Form FDA 3613d for cosmetic products or a paper Form FDA 3613e for food products. We use the information submitted to determine whether to issue the requested certificate.

    OMB has approved the submission of requests for export certificates on paper Forms FDA 3613d and FDA 3613e and, electronically, via the CFSAN Certificate Application Process under OMB control number 0910-0498. This notice announces that, to ensure the efficient review of the information collection by OMB under the PRA, we are seeking to obtain a new OMB Control Number for Forms FDA 3613d and FDA 3613e and the CFSAN Certificate Application Process to reflect that the electronic submission system for food and cosmetic export certificates is separate from the electronic submission system associated with export certificates for other FDA-regulated products approved under OMB control number 0910-0498. Upon OMB approval of this information collection request, we will adjust the burden hours associated with Forms FDA 3613d and FDA 3613e and the CFSAN Certificate Application Process approved under OMB control number 0910-0498.

    We request the following information on Form FDA 3613d and the CFSAN Certificate Application Process, as currently approved by OMB: The name of and contact information for the requester; the name of and contact information for the exporting company (if different from requester); a designation of the type of certificate requested (“general” or “product-specific”); if product-specific, a list of the exact brand names of the products; the contact person, company name and address where the requested certificate should be sent; and, the name and account number (if applicable) of the requester's preferred carrier for delivery of the certificate. Finally, Form FDA 3613d and the CFSAN Certificate Application Process requires the requester's signature, the name and title of the person signing the form, as well as the date signed.

    We request the following information on Form FDA 3613e and the CFSAN Certificate Application Process, as currently approved by OMB: The name of and contact information for the manufacturer, as well as the manufacturer's state license or registration number; the name of and contact information for the exporting company (if different from manufacturer), as well as the exporting company's state license or registration number; a description of the shipment including the product, the common name, the manufacturer, and a description or additional comments; the name of the country to which the requester of the certificate intends to ship the product; the contact person, firm name and address where the requested certificate should be sent; and, the name and account number (if applicable) of the requester's preferred carrier for delivery of the certificate. Form FDA 3613e and the CFSAN Certificate Application Process requires the requestor to submit an original or copy of the applicable product label or labels. Finally, Form FDA 3613e and the CFSAN Certificate Application Process requires the submitter's signature, the name and title of the person signing the form, as well as the date signed.

    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this collection of information are firms interested in exporting U.S.-manufactured food and cosmetic products to foreign countries that require export certificates.

    In the Federal Register of January 9, 2015 (80 FR 1422), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. We received four comments in response to the notice. The comments generally supported the necessity and practical utility of the information collected during the export certificate application process for food, however no comments were received regarding the export certificate application process for cosmetics. Our responses to the comments are discussed below.

    One comment had concerns about our request for the manufacturer's (and exporter's, if different from manufacturer) state license or registration number on Form FDA 3613e, stating that doing so could allow third parties unnecessary and/or unauthorized access to confidential commercial information. We appreciate this comment and note that we do not place the firm's state license or registration numbers on the certificates we issue. In addition, confidential commercial information is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act under sections 552(a) and (b) (5 U.S.C. 552(a) and (b)), and under our regulations at 21 CFR part 20. At the same time, the state license or registration number is necessary for our review of the application. We verify the license or registration and investigate inspection data on the listed products.

    One comment suggested ways we might modify the electronic submission system, including expanding the number of characters that may be entered per data field; developing corporate identification numbers and passwords, permitting a product label to be submitted electronically through the CFSAN Certificate Application Process; and, permitting a submitter to pay the application fees electronically within the CFSAN Certificate Application Process. Similarly, another comment discussed possible changes to the content of the Export Certificates or the Certificates of Free Sale that we issue for food, including incorporating pagination to indicate the number of sequential pages that would be part of the certificate; adding statements that the product is fit for human consumption, may be freely sold or exported in the United States, and, is produced in a manner consistent with good manufacturing practice; and providing the applicant the ability to request the type of certificate referenced on the header of the document and to request additional services, such as a notarized certificate document or expedited processing. While we are not able to accommodate the suggested modifications at this time, we will consider them as we contemplate future revisions to the relevant forms and solicit additional comments at that time through a notice published in the Federal Register.

    Finally, one comment was received that did not respond to any of the four information collection topics solicited and is therefore not addressed by the Agency.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Category FDA form No.2 Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Cosmetics 3613d 600 1 600 1.5 900 Conventional Food (Including Seafood) 3613e 398 1 398 1.5 597 Dietary Supplements, Food for Special Dietary Use, Infant Formula, & Medical Foods 3613e 2,129 4 2,129 1.5 3,194 Food Additives and Food Contact Substances 3613e 167 1 167 1.5 251 Total 4,942 1 There are no operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Forms FDA 3613d and FDA 3613e may be submitted electronically via the Certificate Application Process.

    For the purpose of this information collection request, we are basing our estimate of the average burden per response in column 6 of table 1 on the estimates previously submitted to and approved by OMB under control number 0910-0498. Our estimate of the average burden per response in column 6 of table 1 varies according to the product category for which the certificate is requested. We base our estimates of the total annual responses in column 5 of table 1 on our experience with certificate applications received in the past 2 fiscal years. Some respondents send in requests as often as three or four times a month while others may submit only periodic requests.

    We expect that most if not all firms requesting export certificates in the next 3 years will choose to take advantage of the option of electronic submission via the CFSAN Certificate Application Process. Thus, our burden estimates in table 1 are based on the expectation of 100 percent participation in the electronic submission process. The opportunity to provide the information in electronic format could reduce the Agency's previous estimates for the time to prepare each submission. However, as a conservative approach for the purpose of this analysis, we are assuming that the opportunity to submit the information in electronic format will have no effect on the average time to prepare a submission.

    Dated: March 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08617 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0471] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3397 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection requirements relating to Form FDA 3397, User Fee Cover Sheet, that must be submitted along with certain drug and biologic product applications and supplements.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comment on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3397 (OMB Control Number 0910-0297)—Extension

    Under the prescription drug user fee provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (sections 735 and 736 (21 U.S.C. 379g and 379h)), as amended, FDA has the authority to assess and collect user fees for certain drug and biologics license applications (BLAs) and supplements to those applications. Under this authority, pharmaceutical companies pay a fee for certain new human drug applications (NDAs), BLAs, or supplements submitted to the Agency for review. Because the submission of user fees concurrently with applications and supplements is required, review of an application by FDA cannot begin until the fee is submitted. The Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, Form FDA 3397, is designed to provide the minimum necessary information to determine whether a fee is required for review of an application, to determine the amount of the fee required, and to account for and track user fees. The form provides a cross-reference of the fee submitted for an application by using a unique number tracking system. The information collected is used by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) to initiate the administrative screening of NDAs, BLAs, and/or, supplemental applications to those applications.

    Respondents to this collection of information are new drug and biologics manufacturers. Based on FDA's database system for fiscal year (FY) 2014, there are an estimated 290 manufacturers of products subject to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (Pub. L. 105-115). The total number of annual responses is based on the number of submissions received by FDA in FY 2014. CDER received 3,005 annual responses that include the following submissions: 128 NDAs; 7 BLAs; 1,586 manufacturing supplements; 1,081 labeling supplements; and 203 efficacy supplements. CBER received 705 annual responses that include the following submissions: 11 BLAs; 611 manufacturing supplements; 64 labeling supplements; and 19 efficacy supplements. The estimated hours per response are based on past FDA experience with the various submissions.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 FDA form Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    FDA 3397 290 12.79 3,710 0.5 (30 min.) 1,855 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: March 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08618 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Joint Workshop on Drug Transporters in Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion: From the Bench to the Bedside AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public workshop entitled “Drug Transporters in Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion (ADME): From the Bench to the Bedside.” The public workshop is an American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists/International Transporter Consortium (AAPS/ITC) Joint Workshop, cosponsored with AAPS, the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, and the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences. The goals of this public workshop are to provide an opportunity for scientists in academia, industry, and regulatory agencies to exchange ideas about the cutting edge science in transporters, and to facilitate and enhance translational applications of new development in transporter research in drug development and regulatory review of new therapeutics.

    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on April 20, 2015, from 8:15 a.m. to 7 p.m.; April 21, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; and April 22, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.

    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Renaissance Baltimore Harborplace Hotel, 202 East Pratt St., Baltimore, MD 21202. The hotel's phone number is 410-547-1200.

    Contacts: FDA: Lei Zhang, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3196, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-1635, email: [email protected] AAPS: For questions related to this event, please contact AAPS at [email protected]

    Registration: Workshop information and the registration link are posted at the AAPS meetings and professional development conference site. To register for the workshop, please visit http://www.aaps.org/Meetings_and_Professional_Development/Conference_Mini_Sites/AAPS_WS_Transporters15/Register/. The cost of registration is as follows:

    AAPS Member $1,815 Nonmember 2,190 Government 675 Academic 880 Student 110

    The registration fee will be waived for 50 FDA employees. If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please contact AAPS at [email protected] Onsite registration on the day of the workshop will be available.

    Additional Information About the Workshop: The workshop agenda and additional background materials will be accessible at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm439157.htm to all registrants.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Transporters serve an important role in the ADME of drugs, and in turn could affect their safety or efficacy. The AAPS/ITC joint transporter workshop in 2015 aims to continue on the success of preceding AAPS workshops on Drug Transporters meetings (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013) and ITC transporter workshops (2008 and 2012) to provide an opportunity for scientists in academia, industry, and regulatory agencies to exchange ideas about the cutting-edge science. Key areas of focus will include the following:

    • Transporter tools of the future (e.g., organs-on-a-chip, humanized mouse models, and transporter imaging);

    • Interplay of drug metabolism and transporters;

    • “State of the art” sessions on:

    ○ Emerging transporters,

    ○ Endogenous biomarkers to assess transporter-mediated drug efficacy and toxicity or to predict drug-drug interactions, and

    ○ Quantitative transporter proteomics in translational drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics;

    • “Hot Topics” in the translation of transporter data to the clinic;

    • Prospective transporter substrate modeling; and

    • Review of comments related to transporters following recent guidances issued from the regulatory agencies, including FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (Japan).

    II. Goals and Objectives

    • To provide a forum for open interchange, dissemination, and discussion of cutting edge science in transporters among scientists from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies.

    • To develop a mutual understanding on what needs to be done in transporter research and how to translate knowledge obtained from the bench to bedside.

    • To facilitate and enhance translational applications of new development in transporter research in drug development and regulatory review of new therapeutics.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08614 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Request for Nomination for Industry Representatives and Participation From Industry Organizations on Public Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of nonvoting industry representatives to serve on its public advisory committees for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting nominations for nonvoting industry representatives to serve on CDER's public advisory committees. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Nominations will be accepted for current vacancies effective with this notice.

    DATES:

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests must send a letter stating that interest to FDA by May 15, 2015, (see sections I and II of this document for further details). Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA by May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All statements of interest from interested industry organizations interested in participating in the selection process of nonvoting industry representative nominations should be sent to Cicely Reese (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). All nominations for nonvoting industry representatives may be submitted electronically by accessing the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm or by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5103, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information about becoming a member of an FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's Web site http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cicely Reese, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Agency intends to add a nonvoting industry representative to the following advisory committees:

    I. CDER Advisory Committees

    A. Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology: Reviews and evaluates scientific, clinical, and technical issues related to the safety and effectiveness of drug products for use in the treatment of a broad spectrum of human diseases.

    B. Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee (formerly Anesthetic and Life Support Drugs Advisory Committee): Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in anesthesiology and surgery.

    C. Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of infectious diseases and disorders.

    D. Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), HIV-related illnesses, and other viral, fungal, and mycobacterial infections. (Terminated February 15, 2015).

    E. Arthritis Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of arthritis, rheumatism, and related diseases.

    F. Bone, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee (formerly Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs): Reviews and evaluates available data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drugs for use in the practice of osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease, obstetrics, gynecology, urology, and related specialties.

    G. Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of cardiovascular and renal disorders.

    H. Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of dermatologic and ophthalmic disorders.

    I. Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates information on risk management, risk communication, and quantitative evaluation of spontaneous reports for drugs for human use.

    J. Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of endocrine and metabolic disorders.

    K. Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases.

    L. Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and contrast media used in diagnostic radiology.

    M. Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of over-the-counter (nonprescription) human drug products for use in the treatment of a broad spectrum of human symptoms and diseases.

    N. Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of cancer.

    O. Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of neurologic diseases.

    P. Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee: Provides advice on scientific, technical, and medical issues concerning drug compounding.

    Q. Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the practice of psychiatry and related fields.

    R. Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee: Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of pulmonary disease and diseases with allergic and/or immunologic mechanisms.

    II. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching a complete list of all such organizations and a list of all nominees along with their current resumes. The letter will also state that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to represent industry interests for the committee. The interested organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is selected within 60 days, the Commissioner will select the nonvoting member to represent industry interests.

    III. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). FDA will forward all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in participating in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not participate in the selection process).

    FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.

    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08620 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1083] Innovations in Medical Evidence Development and Surveillance-Methods Research Agenda AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of grant funds for the support of Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). The goal of the CDER is to support the development of appropriate methodologies to conduct medical product safety surveillance in large electronic databases. Innovations in Medical Evidence Development and Surveillance (IMEDS)-Methods is a program within the Reagan-Udall Foundation that supports FDA's scientific mission of serving public health needs by initiating and facilitating research into the methods of safety evaluation in large databases.

    DATES:

    1. The application due date is June 15, 2015.

    2. The anticipated start date is July 15, 2015.

    3. The opening date is April 13, 2015.

    4. The expiration date is June 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit the electronic application to: http://www.grants.gov. For more information, see section III of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Archdeacon, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 51 Rm.6314, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3952; or Vieda Hubbard, Division of Acquisition Support and Grants (HFA-500), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 240-402-7588.

    For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA) and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA located at: http://www.grants.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Funding Opportunity Description RFA-FD-15-010 93.103 A. Background

    Section 905 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85) mandates FDA to develop an enhanced ability to monitor the safety of drugs after these products reach the market. In response to this mandate, FDA launched its Sentinel Initiative, a long-term program designed to build and implement an electronic system for monitoring the safety of medical products in the post market setting. FDA has already created significant infrastructure on which to operate such a system: Through its Mini-Sentinel pilot, a distributed database with access to more than 150 million patient records has been created (the Sentinel Distributed Database). In order to optimally leverage these data, however, new analytic methodologies will be required. IMEDS-Methods is a program within the Reagan-Udall Foundation that supports FDA's scientific mission of serving public health needs by initiating and facilitating research into the methods of safety evaluation in large databases. IMEDS-Methods aims to improve the tools for conducting post-marketing safety surveillance using automated healthcare data and to foster their adoption.

    B. Research Objectives

    IMEDS plans to conduct methods research in five core areas: (1) Addressing bias in estimates from observational studies; (2) better understanding uses and limitations of the data; (3) applying lessons learned from earlier IMEDS projects to FDA surveillance activities; (4) expanding the surveillance question to continuous risk/benefit assessment; and (5) continuing to support qualified investigators in industry, government, and academic settings by providing access to de-identified electronic healthcare data and computing resources through the IMEDS Research Laboratory.

    C. Eligibility Information

    Eligibility is limited to the Reagan-Udall Foundation. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has established the IMEDS-Methods program, which is uniquely positioned to develop the new methodologies required for FDA to conduct effective active post market safety surveillance of medical products using large electronic health care data. The IMEDS organization has developed a network of statisticians, epidemiologists, data scientists, and clinicians who have experience operating in both the IMEDS research laboratory and also familiarity with the Sentinel Distributed Database. In addition, through the Reagan-Udall Foundation public-private partnership, the IMEDS-Methods program has a unique ability to convene FDA, patients, academics, government, and industry so that the findings and tools developed through its research agenda will be promulgated and adopted.

    II. Award Information/Funds Available A. Award Amount

    FDA/CDER intends to fund up to $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2015 in support of this program project. It is anticipated that only one award will be made, not to exceed $1,000,000 (direct plus indirect) for total costs.

    B. Length of Support

    There is a one year period of performance beginning on June 15, 2015 or the date of award.

    III. Electronic Application, Registration, and Submission

    Only one electronic application will be accepted. To submit an electronic application in response to this FOA, the applicant should first review the full announcement located at http://www.grants.gov/. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses throughout this document, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)

    For the electronically submitted application, the following steps are required.

    • Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number

    • Step 2: Register With System for Award Management (SAM)

    • Step 3: Obtain Username & Password

    • Step 4: Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) Authorization

    • Step 5: Track AOR Status

    • Step 6: Register With Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons

    Steps 1 through 5, in detail, can be found at http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp. Step 6, in detail, can be found at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/registration/registrationInstructions.jsp. After you have followed these steps, submit the electronic application to: http://www.grants.gov.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08613 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: HHS-OS-0990-0382- 30-D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for renewal of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0990-0382, scheduled to expire on May 31, 2015. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the OMB control number 0990-0382 and document identifier HHS-OS-30D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Evaluation of Pregnancy Prevention Approaches—First Follow-up

    Abstract: The Office of Adolescent Health (OAH), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request by OMB. The purpose of the extension is to complete the ongoing follow-up data collection for the Evaluation of Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Approaches (PPA), a multi-site random assignment evaluation of promising approaches to teen pregnancy prevention.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The PPA study is being conducted in seven program sites around the country. The proposed extension is necessary to complete ongoing follow-up data collection in five of the seven study sites. The resulting data will be used in a rigorous program impact analysis to assess the effectiveness of each program in reducing rates of teen pregnancy and associated sexual risk behaviors.

    Likely Respondents: The 1484 youth participants who agreed to participate in the study upon sample enrollment in 5 impact study sites.

    The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy (OICA) 294 2 42/60 412 Ohio Health 148 3 42/60 310 Children's Hospital Los Angeles 254 2 36/60 305 EngenderHealth 240 2 36/60 288 Princeton Center for Leadership Training 548 2 36/60 658 Total 1,973
    Terry S. Clark, Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08541 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel PDB-P2C_Infrastructure/Center Grants.

    Date: June 29, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Washington, 1515 Rhode Island Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20005.

    Contact Person: CARLA T. WALLS, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, NIH, 6100 EXECUTIVE BOULEVARD, ROOM 5B01, BETHESDA, MD 20892-9304, (301) 435-6898, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 9, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08572 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health List of Environmentally Responsive Human Genes Selected for Use In Screening Large Numbers of Substances Using Toxicogenomic Approaches

    Request for Comments: The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences/National Toxicology Program requests comments on a list of environmentally responsive human genes selected for use in screening large numbers of substances using toxicogenomic approaches.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)/National Toxicology Program (NTP) requests comments on a set of human genes that have been identified and prioritized as environmentally responsive genes. These genes will be used in toxicogenomics approaches to screen cells or tissues obtained from humans against large numbers of chemicals. The goal was to generate a set of approximately 1500 human genes to evaluate transcriptional changes in response to chemical exposures. Similar gene sets will be developed for screening cells or tissues from other species such as rats, mice, zebrafish, and Caenorhabditis elegans. The human gene set should provide maximal toxicogenomic information on effects from chemical exposures that reflect general cellular responses, independent of cell type or species, and gene expression changes that are specific by organ and/or cell type. Such a list of environmentally responsive genes may also be useful in biomarker development and basic research efforts. This list of genes, referred to as the “S1500” gene list, or gene set, is available for public comment.

    DATES:

    The deadline for receipt of comments is May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the human S1500 gene set should be submitted electronically in Microsoft Excel or Word formats to [email protected] Nominations for genes to be added to the S1500 must be accompanied with a strong scientific justification for inclusion.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Elizabeth Maull, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233 (MD K2-17), Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: In 2008, NIEHS/NTP, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT), and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)/NIH Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC) (now located within the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)) entered into a formal agreement to develop a vision and devise an implementation strategy to shift the assessment of chemical hazards from traditional, experimental animal, toxicology studies to target-specific, mechanism-based, biological observations largely obtained using in vitro assays. In mid-2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) joined the collaboration that is known informally as Tox21.

    Tox21 partner agencies collaborate to research, develop, validate, and translate innovative testing methods for characterization of toxicity pathways; identify compounds, assays, informatic analyses, and targeted testing needed to support the development of new methods; identify patterns of compound-induced biological response(s) in order to characterize toxicity pathways; facilitate cross-species and low-dose extrapolation; prioritize compounds for more extensive toxicological evaluation; and develop predictive models for biological response in humans. The primary activity of Tox21 Phase I was the development of a quantitative high throughput screening (qHTS) approach for toxicology. The goal of Phase II was the implementation of the qHTS approach in screening a 10,000 compound library through a variety of nuclear receptor agonist/antagonist and stress response pathway assays, utilizing primarily reporter gene platforms. In Phase III, the focus is on assaying chemicals in high-content screens and mid to high throughput transcriptomic screens. High throughput gene expression changes will be the primary metric that is employed in Phase III to measure biological effects from chemical exposures.

    To conduct Tox21 Phase III, Tox21 partners initiated the “S1500 Genes High Throughput Transcriptomics” project to capture information from the whole transcriptome (i.e., the entirety of all expressed RNA molecules in a cell or biological sample). This project will use a targeted subset of genes in a HTS or semi-HTS platform to gain insight into how biological systems respond to chemical exposures. Neither the actual number of genes to be utilized, nor the specific transcriptomics platform(s) needed to carry out the project, have been finalized.

    In an effort to select an appropriate subset of key representative or “sentinel” genes, the NTP previously requested input from the scientific community (78 FR 45542, July 29, 2013) on the “Nomination and Prioritization of Environmentally Responsive Genes for Use in Screening Large Numbers of Substances Using Toxicogenomic Technologies.” An interagency working group composed of members of the Tox21 partnership considered the input provided in response to the Federal Register notice as they developed a consensus strategy to select appropriate genes.

    The working group's goal was to select the most relevant and biologically diverse set of sentinel genes to represent transcriptomic responses to injury. Criteria for the selection and evaluation of an appropriate gene set are: (1) Representative of highly diverse gene expression changes reported to date, (2) capable of predicting the gene expression changes observed across the transcriptome, and (3) coverage of all major biological pathways.

    The current version of the human S1500 gene set can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/S1500. This site will be updated as changes to the list are made. The consensus strategy for selection of an appropriate sentinel gene set can be accessed at the same site.

    Comments on the human S1500 gene set should be submitted electronically in Microsoft Excel or Word format to [email protected]

    Respondents to this request are asked to provide their name, affiliation, address, and contact information (including telephone and fax numbers, and email address). The deadline for receipt of comments is May 15, 2015.

    Responses to this request are voluntary. This notice does not obligate the U.S. Government to award a contract or otherwise pay for the information provided in response to this request. The U.S. Government reserves the right to use information provided by respondents for any purpose deemed necessary and legally appropriate. Any organization responding to this request should ensure that its response is complete and sufficiently detailed. Respondents are advised that the U.S. Government is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in your response.

    Background Information on the NTP: The NTP is an interagency program established in 1978 (43 FR 53060) to strengthen the Department's activities in toxicology research and testing and to develop and validate new and better testing methods. Other activities of the program focus on strengthening the science base in toxicology and providing information about potentially toxic chemicals to health-regulatory and research agencies, scientific and medical communities, and the public. The NTP is located administratively at the NIEHS. Information about NTP and NIEHS is available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov and http://www.niehs.nih.gov, respectively.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. John R. Bucher, Associate Director, National Toxicology Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08529 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Aging.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Council on Aging.

    Date: May 12-13, 2015.

    Closed: May 12, 2015, 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building—Building 45, P2 Level, Conference Room E1/E2, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Open: May 13, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Call to order and report from the Director; discussion of future meeting dates; consideration of minutes of last meeting; reports from Task Force on Minority Aging Research, Council of Councils, NACA Physician Scientist Working Group, Working Group on Program; Council Speaker; Program Highlights.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building—Building 45, P2 Level, Conference Room E1/E2, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Robin Barr, Ph.D., Director, National Institute on Aging, Office of Extramural Activities, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 496-9322, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.nih.gov/nia/naca/, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 9, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08569 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel; AHHC Review.

    Date: May 14, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Shiguang Yang, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCD, NIH, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 8349, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8683, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel; Translational—VSL.

    Date: June 1, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Kausik Ray, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-402-3587, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Communication Disorders Review Committee.

    Date: June 18-19, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel at Pentagon City, 1250 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Eliane Lazar-Wesley, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders/NIH, 6001 Executive Blvd., MSC 9670, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, 301-496-8683, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel; Translational—Hearing and Balance.

    Date: July 9, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Kausik Ray, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-402-3587, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 9, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08527 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Open Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee.

    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee.

    Date: July 8, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Strategic Discussion of NCI's Clinical and Translational Research Programs.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, C-Wing, 6th Floor, Room 9 and 10, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Sheila A. Prindiville, MD, MPH Director, Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 6W136, Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-6173, [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ctac/ctac.htm where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 9, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08571 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5831-N-18] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: CDBG Urban County Qualification/Requalification Process AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at Colette [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on February 9, 2015 at 80 FR 7028.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Urban County Qualification/Requalification Processes.

    OMB Approval Number: 2506-0170.

    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.

    Form Numbers: N/A.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, at sections 102(a)(6) and 102(e) requires that any county seeking qualification as an urban county notify each unit of general local government within the county that such unit may enter into a cooperation agreement to participate in the CDBG program as part of the county. Section 102(d) of the statute specifies that the period of qualification will be three years. Based on these statutory provisions, counties seeking qualification or requalification as urban counties under the CDBG program must provide information to HUD every three years identifying the units of general local governments (UGLGs) within the county participating as a part of the county for purposes of receiving CDBG funds. The population of UGLGs for each eligible urban county is used in HUD's allocation of CDBG funds for all entitlement and State CDBG grantees.

    New York towns undertook a similar process every three years. However, after consultation with program counsel, it was determined that a requalification process for New York towns is unnecessary because the units of general local government in New York towns do not have the same statutory notice rights (under Section 102(e) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) as units of general local government participating in an urban county. In addition, each New York town has automatic renewing agreements with the incorporated units of general local governments contained within their boundaries. Therefore, it is presumed that all incorporated units of general local government will continue to participate in the New York towns in which they are located unless Headquarters is notified to the contrary.

    Respondents: Urban counties that are eligible as entitlement grantees of the CDBG program.

    Estimation Number of Respondents: There are currently 185 qualified urban counties participating in the CDBG program that must requalify every three years.

    Frequency of Response: On average, two new counties qualify each year. The burden on new counties is greater than for existing counties that requalify. The Department estimates new grantees use, on average, 100 hours to review instructions, contact communities in the county, prepare and review agreements, obtain legal opinions, have agreements executed at the local and county level, and prepare and transmit copies of required documents to HUD. The Department estimates that counties that are requalifying use, on average, 60 hours to complete these actions. The time savings on requalification is primarily a result of a grantee's ability to use agreements with no specified end date. Use of such “renewable” agreements enables the grantee to merely notify affected participating UGLGs in writing that their agreement will automatically be renewed unless the UGLG terminates the agreement in writing, rather than executing a new agreement every three years.

    Average of 2 new urban counties qualify per year 2 × 100 hrs = 200 hrs. 185 grantees requalify on triennial basis; average annual number of respondents = 62 62 × 60 hrs. = 3,720 hrs. Total combined burden hours 3,920 hours.

    This total number of combined burden hours can be expected to increase annually by 200 hours, given the average of two new urban counties becoming eligible entitlement grantees each year.

    Information collection
  • 2506-0170
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden hour
  • per response
  • Annual
  • burden hours
  • Hourly cost
  • per response
  • Annual cost
    2 2 2 100 200 185 1 62 60 3,720 Total 3,920 $18.00 $70,560
    Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08655 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5831-N-17] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at Colette [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on February 9, 2015 at 80 FR 7027.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Program.

    OMB Approval Number: 2506-0077.

    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.

    Form Numbers: N/A.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This request identifies the estimated reporting burden associated with information that CDBG entitlement grantees will report in IDIS for CDBG-assisted activities, recordkeeping requirements, and reporting requirements. Grantees are encouraged to update their accomplishments in IDIS on a quarterly basis. In addition, grantees are required to retain records necessary to document compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, Executive Orders, applicable OMB Circulars, and determinations required to be made by grantees as a determination of eligibility. Grantees are required to prepare and submit their Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports, which demonstrate the progress grantees make in carrying out CDBG-assisted activities listed in their consolidated plans. This report is due to HUD 90 days after the end of the grantee's program year. The information required for any particular activity is generally based on the eligibility of the activity and which of the three national objectives (benefit low- and moderate-income persons; eliminate/prevent slums or blight; or meet an urgent need) the grantee has determined that the activity will address.

    Respondents: Grant recipients (metropolitan cities and urban counties) participating in the CDBG Entitlement Program.

    Estimation Number of Respondents: 1,164.

    Estimation Number of Responses: The proposed frequency of the response to the collection is on an annual basis.

    Frequency of Response: Annually.

    Total Estimated Burdens: The total estimated burden is 544,984.

    Information Collection
  • 2506-0077
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden
  • hour per
  • response
  • Annual
  • burden hours
  • Hourly cost
  • per response
  • Annual cost
    Recordkeeping 1,164 1 1,164 129.2 150,388 Reporting 1,164 4 4,656 78.50 365,496 Maintain Documentation 1,164 1 1,164 25 29,100 Total 6,984 42 544,984 $36.60 $1,789,300.80
    Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08656 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R2-ES-2015-N034; FXES11130100000C4-156-FF01E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Status Reviews of Black-Lace Cactus, Bone Cave Harvestman, Pima Pineapple Cactus, Texas Snowbells, and Walker's Manioc in the Southwest Region AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), of the endangered black-lace cactus (Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertii), the endangered Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi), the endangered Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina), the endangered Texas snowbells (Styrax texanus), and the endangered Walker's manioc (Manihot walkerae). A 5-year review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any such information that has become available since our original listing of these five species or since the last 5-year review.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, we are requesting submission of new information no later than June 15, 2015. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    For how to submit information, see Request for Information and How Do I Ask Questions or Provide Information? in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on a particular species, contact the appropriate person or office listed in the table in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Why do we conduct a 5-year review?

    Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we maintain Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which we collectively refer to as the List) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species under active review. For additional information about 5-year reviews, refer to our factsheet at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/recovery-overview.html.

    What information do we consider in our review?

    A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. For all five of these species, this will be the second 5-year review developed for each species. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as:

    (A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;

    (B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;

    (C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;

    (D) Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act); and

    (E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.

    Any new information will be considered during the 5-year review and will also be useful in evaluating the ongoing recovery programs for the species.

    Which species are under review?

    This notice announces our active review of the species listed in the table below.

    Common name Scientific name Listing status Where listed Final listing rule (Federal Register citation and publication date) Contact person, phone, email Contact person's U.S. mail address Cactus, black-lace Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertii Endangered U.S.A. (TX) 41 FR 24524; June 16, 1976 Field Supervisor, 281-286-8282 (phone); [email protected] (email) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Ecological Services Field Office, 17629 El Camino Real, Suite 211, Houston, TX 77058. Cactus, Pima pineapple Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina Endangered U.S.A (AZ) 58 FR 49875; September 23, 1993 Field Supervisor, 602-242-0210 (phone); [email protected] (email) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, Attention 5-Year Review, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. Harvestman, Bone Cave Texella reyesi Endangered U.S.A. (TX) 53 FR 36029; September 16, 1988 Field Supervisor, 512-490-0057 (phone); [email protected] (email) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Attention 5-Year Review, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Compass Bank Building, Austin, TX 78758. Manioc, Walker's Manihot walkerae Endangered U.S.A. (AZ) 56 FR 49850; October 2, 1991 Field Supervisor, 281-286-8282 (phone); [email protected] (email) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Ecological Services Field Office, 17629 El Camino Real, Suite 211, Houston, TX 77058. Snowbells, Texas Styrax texanus Endangered U.S.A. (TX) 49 FR 40036; October 12, 1984 Field Supervisor, 512-490-0057 (phone); [email protected] (email) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Attention 5-Year Review, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Compass Bank Building, Austin, TX 78758. Request for Information

    To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See What Information Do We Consider in Our Review? for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.

    How do I ask questions or provide information?

    If you wish to provide information for any species listed above, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in the table above. You may also direct questions to those contacts. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices where the comments are submitted.

    Completed and Active Reviews

    A list of all completed and currently active 5-year reviews addressing species for which the Southwest Region of the Service has lead responsibility is available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm (under “Select a Document Category,” select “5-Year Review”).

    Authority

    This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: March 19, 2015. Joy E. Nicholopoulos, Regional Director, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08624 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey Announcement of USGS National Geospatial Program (NGP) 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) FY15 Public Meetings in Preparation for the Upcoming Release of the USGS Broad Agency Announcement for 3D Elevation ACTION:

    Notice of Meeting(s).

    SUMMARY:

    The 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) initiative is being developed to respond to needs for high-quality topographic data and for a wide range of other three-dimensional representations of the Nation's natural and constructed features. The primary goal of 3DEP is to systematically collect enhanced elevation data in the form of high-quality light detection and ranging (lidar) data over the conterminous United States, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories, as well as interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data over Alaska. The 3DEP initiative is based on the results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment (NEEA), which indicated an optimal benefit to cost ratio for Quality Level 2 (QL2) data collected over 8-years to complete national coverage. The implementation model for 3DEP is based on multi-agency partnership funding for acquisition, with the USGS acting in a lead program management role to facilitate planning and acquisition for the broader community, through the use of government contracts and partnership agreements. The annual Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) is a competitive solicitation issued to facilitate the collection of lidar and derived elevation data for the 3D Elevation Program (3DEP). Federal agencies, state and local governments, tribes, academic institutions and the private sector are eligible to submit proposals. The 3DEP public meetings will introduce this opportunity to the broadest stakeholder community possible and provide a forum for interested parties to discuss elevation data collection needs of mutual interest that could be addressed by a coordinated investment.

    Advanced Registration is required for meeting attendance. National Webinars will be recorded and made available for viewing.

    DATES:

    USGS Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) FY15 National Webinars—Notice of Proposed Public Acquisition Opportunity: April 24th 12:00-1:00 ET, April 29th 2:00-3:00 ET. Virtual meeting information posted on https://www.geoplatform.gov/elevation/3DEP.

    3DEP Public Workshops in support of upcoming BAA: To be held throughout the US between May 4th and June 26th. Locations, Dates, Times and Registration Information posted on: https://www.geoplatform.gov/elevation/3DEP. Registration available beginning May 1st.

    USGS Broad Agency Announcement for 3D Elevation Program FY15 National Webinars—Instructions for proposal submissions: July 23rd 12:00-1:00 ET, July 28th 2:00-3:00 ET. Virtual meeting information posted on https://www.geoplatform.gov/elevation/3DEP.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    3D Elevation Program, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The BAA is issued under the provisions of FAR Part 35. Proposals selected for eventual award are considered to be the result of full and open competition and in full compliance with the provision of Public Law 98-369, “The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984” and subsequent amendments. For additional information on the 3DEP program http://nationalmap.gov/3DEP/index.html.

    Dated: April 10, 2014. Julia Fields, Deputy Director, National Geospatial Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08668 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation [RR01113000, XXXR0680R1, RR.R0336A1R.7WRMP0032] Notice To Reopen the Public Comment Period and Notice of Additional Public Meetings for the Kachess Drought Relief Pumping Plant and Keechelus Reservoir-to-Kachess Reservoir Conveyance Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Kittitas and Yakima Counties, Washington AGENCY:

    Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Reclamation is reopening the public comment period for the Kachess Drought Relief Pumping Plant and Keechelus Reservoir-to-Kachess Reservoir Conveyance Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for another 60 days to allow the public more time to comment. We are also announcing four additional public meetings to be held in May 2015.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the scope of the Draft EIS on or before June 15, 2015.

    Four public meetings will be held on the following dates and times:

    • Monday, May 4, 2015, 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Ellensburg, Washington • Tuesday, May 5, 2015, 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Cle Elum, Washington ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments on the scope of the Draft EIS to Ms. Candace McKinley, Bureau of Reclamation, 1917 Marsh Road, Yakima, WA 98901; or via email to [email protected]. The Draft EIS is accessible on the following Web sites: http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/eis/kdrpp/index.html; and http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/eis/kkc/index.html.

    The public meetings will be held at the following locations:

    • Ellensburg—Hal Holmes Community Center, 209 N. Ruby Street, Ellensburg, Washington 98926 • Cle Elum—U.S. Forest Service, Cle Elum Ranger District, Tom Craven Conference Room, 803 W. 2nd Street, Cle Elum, Washington 98922
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Candace McKinley, 509-575-5848, ext. 603; or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Bureau of Reclamation published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on January 9, 2015 (80 FR 1431). The public comment period ended on March 10, 2015. We received numerous comments from the public requesting more time to comment on the project. In response to those comments, we are reopening the public comment period for an additional 60 days.

    Public Disclosure

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: March 9, 2015. Lorri J. Lee, Regional Director, Pacific Northwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08626 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Second Review) and AA1921-188 (Fourth Review)] Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand Determinations

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on prestressed concrete steel wire strand (“PC strand”) from India, the antidumping duty orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, as well as the antidumping duty finding on PC strand from Japan, would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on November 3, 2014 (79 FR 65246) and determined on February 6, 2015, that it would conduct expedited reviews (80 FR 9747, February 24, 2015).

    The Commission completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on April 10, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4527 (April 2015), entitled Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Second Review) and AA1921-188 (Fourth Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 10, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08671 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    On April 9, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in the lawsuit entitled United States and the State of Wisconsin v. NCR Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-910 (E.D. Wis.).

    In 2010, the United States and the State of Wisconsin filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants that had contributed to polychlorinated biphenyl (“PCB”) contamination in sediment at the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Superfund Site in northeastern Wisconsin (the “Site”). That lawsuit—brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601-75—sought enforcement of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency order requiring cleanup work at the Site, reimbursement of response costs that the United States and the State have incurred in addressing the PCB contamination at the Site, and recovery of damages for injuries to natural resources resulting from the PCB contamination. The proposed Consent Decree is a partial settlement that requires two defendants, NCR Corporation and Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, to fund and perform an estimated $67 million in sediment remediation work at the Site in 2015. This partial settlement does not resolve all aspects of the ongoing lawsuit or all potential liabilities of NCR Corporation or Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States and the State of Wisconsin v. NCR Corp., et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-2-1045/3. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs (at 25 cents per page). Please mail your request and a check or money order payable to the United States Treasury to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    The cost for a paper copy is $2.75 for the Consent Decree alone or $40.00 for the Consent Decree and its Appendix.

    Randall M. Stone, Acting Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08637 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [Docket No. ODAG 153] Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a forthcoming public meeting of the National Commission on Forensic Science.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on April 30, 2015 from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. and May 1, 2015 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Online registration for the meeting must be completed on or before 5 p.m. (EST) April 25, 2015. Electronic comments on draft work products will be accepted through the electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) for a 30 day public comment period.

    ADDRESSES:

    Location: House of Sweden: 2900 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brette Steele, Senior Advisor on Forensic Science and Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, by email at [email protected], or by phone at (202) 305-0180.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: On April 30, the Commission will receive opening remarks from the Co-Chairs and a briefing on issues related to evidence preservation and retention. The Commission will also receive status reports from the subcommittees on Reporting and Testimony and Accreditation and Proficiency Testing. The public comment period will begin at 5 p.m. On May 1, the Commission will receive status reports from the subcommittees on Interim Solutions, Medicolegal Death Investigation, Training on Science and Law, and Human Factors. The Commission will receive priority action reports from each of the five Scientific Area Committee Chairs and will receive a briefing on the role of forensic science in mass fatality management. Note: Agenda items, including designation of presentation dates are subject to change. A final agenda will be posted to the Commission's Web site in advance of the meeting.

    Procedures: Draft work products to be introduced at the Commission meeting will be made available on the Commission's Web site: http://www.justice.gov/ncfs. The meeting will be webcast at: http://stream.sparkstreetdigital.com/player-ce.html?id=doj-apr30. The meeting will also be open to the public. Seating in the meeting room is limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. All persons who are interested in being on-site for the meeting must register on-line by clicking the registration link found at: http://www.justice.gov/ncfs/meetings#s6.

    Members of the public may present oral comments on issues pending before the Commission. Those individuals interested in making oral comments should indicate their intent through the on-line registration form and time will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. Time allotted for an individual's comment period will be limited to no more than 3 minutes. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled public comment periods, written comments can be submitted through FDMS in lieu of oral comments.

    Posting of Public Comments: To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. ODAG 153” on all electronic and written correspondence. The Department encourages all comments on subcommittee work products be submitted electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using the electronic comment form provided on that site. Paper comments that duplicate the electronic submission are not necessary as all comments submitted to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted for public review and are part of the official docket record.

    In accordance with the Federal Records Act, please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record, and shall be made available for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. The comments to be posted may include personally identifiable information (such as your name, address, etc.) and confidential business information voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

    You are not required to submit personal identifying information in order to comment on this meeting. Nevertheless, if you want to submit personally identifiable information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made available for public inspection and posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personally identifiable information you do not want made available for public inspection or posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

    If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made available for public inspection and posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made available for public inspection or posted online.

    Personally identifiable information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted and the comment, in redacted form, will be made available for public inspection and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    The Department of Justice welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations, please indicate your requirements on the online registration form.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Brette Steele, Designated Federal Officer, National Commission on Forensic Science.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08680 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions AGENCY:

    Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Exemptions.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains notices of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of proposed exemptions from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). This notice includes the following proposed exemptions: D-11726, Rock Wool Manufacturing Company; L-11784, Eli Lilly and Company and Elco Insurance Company Limited; D-11798, Robert A. Handelman Roth IRA No. 2; and, D-11809 and L-11810, Roofers Local 195 Pension Fund and Roofers Local 195 Joint Apprenticeship Training Fund.

    DATES:

    All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or requests for a hearing on the pending exemptions, unless otherwise stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 45 days from the date of publication of this Federal Register Notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and requests for a hearing should state: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the person making the comment or request, and (2) the nature of the person's interest in the exemption and the manner in which the person would be adversely affected by the exemption. A request for a hearing must also state the issues to be addressed and include a general description of the evidence to be presented at the hearing. All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least three copies) should be sent to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, Room N-5700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Application No. __, stated in each Notice of Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to submit comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via email or FAX. Any such comments or requests should be sent either by email to: [email protected], or by FAX to (202) 219-0204 by the end of the scheduled comment period. The applications for exemption and the comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public Documents Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    Warning: All comments will be made available to the public. Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as Social Security number, name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice to Interested Persons

    Notice of the proposed exemptions will be provided to all interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the Federal Register. Such notice shall include a copy of the notice of proposed exemption as published in the Federal Register and shall inform interested persons of their right to comment and to request a hearing (where appropriate).

    The proposed exemptions were requested in applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).1 Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed exemption are issued solely by the Department.

    1 The Department has considered exemption applications received prior to December 27, 2011 under the exemption procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).

    The applications contain representations with regard to the proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations.

    Rock Wool Manufacturing Company Salaried Retirement Plan (the Plan) Located in Leeds, AL [Application No. D-11726] Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act (or ERISA) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 46637, 66644, October 27, 2011).2 If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) and (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the proposed in-kind contribution (the Contribution) to the Plan of a parcel of unimproved real property (the Property) by Rock Wool Manufacturing Company (Rock Wool or the Company), the Plan sponsor and a party in interest with respect to the Plan, provided that the following conditions are satisfied:

    2 For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to specific provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.

    (a) A qualified independent fiduciary (the Independent Fiduciary), acting on behalf of the Plan:

    (1) Determines that the Contribution is in the interests of the Plan and protective of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries; and

    (2) Determines that the Property is valued for purposes of the Contribution at the Property's fair market value as of the date of the Contribution, as determined by a qualified independent appraiser (the Independent Appraiser);

    (b) The Independent Fiduciary performs the following steps in order to make the determinations described above in paragraph (a):

    (1) Reviews, negotiates, and approves the specific terms of the Contribution; and

    (2) Ensures, for the purposes of the Contribution, that the appraisal report (the Appraisal Report) is consistent with sound principles of valuation;

    (c) As of the date of the Contribution, the Independent Fiduciary monitors compliance by Rock Wool with respect to the terms of the Contribution and with the conditions of this exemption, if granted, to ensure that such terms and conditions are satisfied at all times;

    (d) The Plan does not pay any commissions, costs or other expenses, including any fees that are currently charged or accrued in the future by the Independent Fiduciary and the Independent Appraiser, in connection with the Contribution; and

    (e) The terms and conditions of the Contribution are no less favorable to the Plan than the terms that would be negotiated at arm's length between unrelated third parties under similar circumstances.

    (f) The contributed value of the Property is equal to the Property's fair market value, as determined by the Independent Appraiser on the transaction date, less a 35 percent discount to account for certain marketability limitations.

    Summary of Facts and Represenations

    1. Rock Wool, headquartered in Leeds, Alabama, was founded in 1943. The current Chairman and CEO of Rock Wool is Sylvester Miniter III and the current Vice President of Operations is Gerald Miller. Rock Wool operates as a manufacturer of residential blowing wool insulation and high temperature pipe insulation fabrication. During the 1970's, Rock Wool began to incorporate into its product line certain materials containing asbestos. When the harmful effects of asbestos were later discovered, Rock Wool was named as the defendant in numerous lawsuits. Following the exhaustion of its insurance coverage, Rock Wool filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Subsequent to Rockwool's bankruptcy filing, plaintiff attorneys reached a settlement agreement under which Rockwool's owners relinquished ownership rights and contributed Company stock to an asbestos settlement fund (the Settlement Fund). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, any profits earned by Rock Wool are to be deposited into the settlement fund to pay claimants on a periodic basis. As of September 30, 2014, Rock Wool had total assets of $5,706,884.62 and total liabilities of 3,108,653.82.

    2. The Plan, which was adopted by Rock Wool on May 1, 1974, is structured as a defined benefit plan. The Plan's trustees are Sylvester Miniter III and Gerald Miller (the Trustees), and the Plan's investment manager is Lee Robertson of Legg Mason Investment Counsel. As the Plan's investment manager, Mr. Robertson exercises discretion over the Plan's assets, and as such, qualifies as a fiduciary under section 3(38) of the Act.3

    3 Section 3(38) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the term “investment manager” means any fiduciary (other than a trustee or named fiduciary, as defined in section 1102(a)(2) of this title)—(A) who has the power to manage, acquire, or dispose of any asset of a plan; (B) who (i) is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and (ii) is a bank, as defined in that Act; and (C) has acknowledged in writing that he is a fiduciary with respect to the plan.

    As of January 28, 2015, the Plan covered 27 participants and held assets valued at approximately $2,537,114. The Plan has been frozen to new participants since December 31, 2001, and to benefit accruals since August 31, 2008.

    3. Rock Wool contributed $26,675 to the Plan during the year ending December 31, 2012, and $134,428 for the year ending December 31, 2013. As of September 1, 2012 and September 1, 2013, the adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP) for the Plan was 80.82% and 81.09%, respectively. Pursuant to section 302 of the Act, Rock Wool is obligated to make a required minimum cash contribution to the Plan of $134,000 on or before May 15, 2015 for the 2014 Plan year (the Required Contribution).

    4. Rock Wool proposes to make an in-kind contribution to the Plan of certain unimproved real property, in lieu of cash, due to its current cash flow restrictions. Currently, Rock Wool is experiencing restricted cash flow problems due to, among other things, its inability to obtain third party financing and its funding obligations with respect to the Settlement Fund.

    In effect, the in-kind contribution of the Property to the Plan will offset the minimum funding amount due to the Plan under section 302 of the Act, as the contribution value of the Property (the fair market value of the Property minus the marketability discount) will exceed the $134,000 Required Contribution. Thus, the contribution of the Property will allow Rock Wool to forego making a $134,000 cash payment to the Plan.4 Accordingly, Rock Wool requests an administrative exemption from the Department because the proposed Contribution would otherwise violate several provisions of the Act.

    4 It is within the Plan's investment policy to allow in-kind contributions that are made by Rock Wool.

    5. Section 406(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that a fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not cause a plan to engage in a transaction if the fiduciary knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect sale or exchange, or leasing, of any property between a plan and a party in interest. Section 3(14)(A) of the Act defines the term “party in interest” to include a fiduciary. Section 3(14)(C) of the Act also defines the term party in interest to include an employer, any of whose employees are covered by such plan. The Trustees, who are principals of Rock Wool, together with Mr. Robertson, are parties in interest with respect to the Plan, as fiduciaries. In addition, Rock Wool is a party in interest with respect to the Plan as an employer whose employees are covered by the Plan.

    With respect to a defined benefit plan, such as the Plan, an employer assumes an obligation to make cash contributions to the plan in order to fund promised benefits. Rock Wool's proposed Contribution of the Property to the Plan would thus constitute a discharge of Rock Wool's legal obligation with respect to the Required Contribution, as noted above, as well as, depending on the Plan's funding status in future years, Rock Wool's obligation to make cash contributions to the Plan in the future. As such, the Plan would, in effect, be exchanging its legal right to receive a cash contribution for the receipt of real property. Thus, Rock Wool's proposed Contribution of the Property to the Plan constitutes a prohibited sale or exchange in violation of section 406(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

    The Contribution would also violate section 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act. Section 406(b)(1) prohibits a fiduciary from dealing with the assets of the plan in such fiduciary's own interests or for such fiduciary's personal account. In determining that it would be appropriate for the Plan to receive the Contribution of the Property from Rock Wool instead of cash, the Trustees would effectively be releasing Rock Wool from, at minimum, its $134,000 cash obligation to the Plan. Due to the fact that the Trustees hold executive positions at Rock Wool, each Trustee would be dealing with the assets of the Plan for his own interest or personal account.

    In addition, section 406(b)(2) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary from acting in such fiduciary's individual or other capacity in any transaction involving the plan on behalf of a party (or from representing a party) whose interests are adverse to the interests of the plan, or the interests of the Plan participants and beneficiaries. As Trustees and Rock Wool principals, Messrs. Miniter and Miller may have divided loyalties in representing both the interests of the Plan and Rock Wool with respect to the Contribution of the Property.

    6. The Property that is the subject of the Contribution was purchased for $36,175 in 1947 by the Cusick Family, the original owners of Rock Wool. The Cusicks incorporated Rock Wool in July of 1958, at which time the Property became the Company's primary manufacturing and warehouse facility.

    The Property is located at 8200 Thorton Avenue, Leeds, Alabama, and currently consists of 2.67 acres of unimproved vacant land that is not encumbered by a mortgage. The Property is located approximately 1.3 miles from Rock Wool's manufacturing plant. The land is not presently used by Rock Wool, nor will it be used in the future by Rock Wool, its affiliates, or members of the Cusick Family. The only ongoing expenses associated with the Property are real estate taxes, which amount to approximately $1,800 per year.

    7. The Property was appraised on August 4, 2014, by James P. Sumners, a State Certified Real Property Appraiser in the State of Alabama (License # G00037) (the Independent Appraiser). Mr. Sumners is employed by the real estate appraisal firm of Providence Company (Providence), located in Birmingham, Alabama. Mr. Sumners has certified that he “has no present or prospective interest in the [P]roperty that is the subject of this report, and has no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.” Further, Mr. Sumners represents that his fees derived from Rock Wool are equal to less than 1% of Providence's revenues, from all sources.

    Due to the fact that the Property is a parcel of vacant land, Mr. Sumners based his valuation solely on the Market Approach. Mr. Sumners reported his conclusion in a summary appraisal report, dated August 6, 2014, and formulated his opinion and conclusion in accordance with Standard Rule 1 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The Appraisal Report was written in compliance with USPAP and Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) guidelines. After inspecting the Property and analyzing all relevant data, Mr. Sumners determined the “AS-IS” Fee Simple Market Value of the Property to be $325,000.00, as of August 4, 2014.

    8. On August 21, 2013, the Trustees hired Layton Engineering of Birmingham, Alabama (Layton), an unrelated party, to conduct an environmental engineering report (the Environmental Report) on the Property. In its Environmental Report, Layton tested soil at the Property for heightened levels of chromium. The tests were compared with a previous soil assessment conducted at the Property by Layton in 2002, as well as against four background samples that were obtained from a nearby property. Each nearby property was reasonably expected to be unaffected by current or historical processes and within depositional environments similar to those at the Property. Based on the tests, Layton concluded that the results of the analysis demonstrated that the levels of chromium at the Property site were well within the range of natural background concentrations of chromium in the unaffected adjacent soils. Thus, Layton has confirmed that the Property is environmentally clean.

    9. The Trustees have selected Lubbock National Bank (LNB) to serve on behalf of the Plan as the Independent Fiduciary with respect to the proposed Contribution. Specifically, LNB has designated Christopher L. Robinson, Senior Vice President and Senior Trust Officer of LNB, to prepare the Independent Fiduciary Report and to assume the duties and responsibilities of the Independent Fiduciary for the Plan. Mr. Robinson's qualifications include thirteen years of experience as an ERISA attorney and graduate and undergraduate degrees in Finance. Mr. Robinson represents that he is knowledgeable as to the duties and responsibilities of an ERISA fiduciary by virtue of his educational background and his experience as an official with LNB. Mr. Robinson has also served as a fiduciary for other qualified plans.

    10. Mr. Robinson represents that the only revenue received by LNB from any party in interest to the Plan are those fees derived from Rock Wool in connection with Mr. Robinson's duties as the Plan's Independent Fiduciary, and that these fees are equal to less than 1% of LNB's revenues from all sources, for both 2013 and 2014. In addition, Mr. Robinson states that neither he nor any officer, board member, or shareholder of LNB is related in any way to Rock Wool, or its principals, through ownership, common officers or directors, debt relationships, business dealings, or family relationships. Mr. Robinson further represents that neither Rock Wool nor any of its principals have deposited any funds in checking accounts, savings accounts, or certificates of deposit maintained by LNB.

    11. In his role as Independent Fiduciary, Mr. Robinson represents that he will confirm that the Property has been properly titled in the name of the Plan by reviewing the title records and by ensuring that the Contribution to the Plan has in fact been made. Further, Mr. Robinson will ensure that the Plan does not pay any fees or commissions with respect to the Contribution.

    12. Mr. Robinson has expressed his views in support of the Contribution, stating that the Contribution is favorable to the Plan. In determining whether the in-kind contribution would be in the interests of the Plan, Mr. Robinson reviewed and considered: (a) Representations made by Rock Wool regarding the Plan and the Property; (b) the value conclusions and related analysis presented by the Independent Appraiser; (c) discussions with certain members of Rock Wool's senior management regarding the Plan and the related investment policy, the nature of the Property, and future prospects for the usefulness and marketability of such Property 5 ; (d) the Plan's investment objectives, policies, and related Plan documents; (e) whether the terms and conditions of the Contribution are no less favorable to the Plan than terms negotiated at arm's length under similar circumstances between unrelated third parties; and (f) other analyses and investigations.

    5 Mr. Robinson represents that during the course of his due diligence, he had conversations with the Plan Trustees and Rock Wool management as to the potential benefit of the Property to the Plan. During such conversations, Rock Wool management expressed its belief that the Property could generate revenue in the future, either from a sale or through leasing. On the basis of his conversations with Rock Wool management, Mr. Robinson concluded that the Property should serve the Plan well in terms of growth of asset value and, potentially, as a current income stream through a leasing strategy.

    13. Based on his review, Mr. Robinson determined that the Contribution of the Property is appropriate and in the interest of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries. In this regard, Mr. Robinson concluded that the Contribution will substantially increase the funded status of the Plan, and will place the Plan in a more secure actuarial and financial position, with both a higher funding percentage and a larger funding standard account balance. Additionally, Mr. Robinson concluded that the Plan's acquisition of the Property will improve the diversification of Plan investments and further Plan investment policies and objectives. Further, Mr. Robinson stated that the Contribution presents the Plan with the added benefit of a potential future stream of cash flow, in the event that the Property is leased to third parties.

    14. With regard to potential alternatives to the proposed Contribution, Mr. Robinson considered a sale of the Property to an unrelated third party. Mr. Robinson asserted that such a sale would be beneficial to neither the Plan nor Rock Wool, due to the fact that: (a) The Property likely would have to be sold at a discounted amount, approximately 25% to 35% below fair market value; and (b) the sale would likely take between 36 and 48 months to complete.

    Based upon Mr. Robinson's representations, the Applicant subsequently determined that a 35% discount should be applied to the Property's fair market value to account for marketability limitations. Accordingly, the Applicant has agreed that the Property's contribution value, after applying the 35% discount, is $211,250, subject to any fair market value adjustments made by the Appraiser on the transaction date. Thus, the contributed value of the Property would represent 7.69% of the Plan' assets.

    15. Rock Wool represents that the Contribution is administratively feasible because the transaction would require a simple re-deeding of the Property to the Plan and would not require the Plan to pay any fees or commissions. Further, Rock Wool believes the Contribution would be in the interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries and protective of their rights because the Contribution would increase the value of the Plan's assets.

    16. In summary, it is represented that the proposed transaction satisfies or will satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act because:

    (a) The Independent Fiduciary, acting on behalf of the Plan:

    (1) Has determined that the Contribution is in the interests of the Plan and protective of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries; and

    (2) Will determine that the Property is valued for purposes of the Contribution at the Property's fair market value as of the date of the Contribution, as determined by the Independent Appraiser;

    (b) The Independent Fiduciary has performed the following steps in order to make his determinations, described above in paragraph (a):

    (1) Reviewed, negotiated, and approved the specific terms of the Contribution; and

    (2) Ensured, for purposes of the Contribution, that the Appraisal Report is consistent with sound principles of valuation;

    (c) As of the date of the Contribution, the Independent Fiduciary will monitor compliance by Rock Wool with respect to the terms of the Contribution and with the conditions of this exemption, if granted, to ensure that such terms and conditions are satisfied at all times;

    (d) The Plan will not pay any commissions, costs or other expenses, including any fees that are currently charged or accrued in the future by the Independent Fiduciary and the Independent Appraiser, in connection with the Contribution; and

    (e) The terms and conditions of the Contribution will not be less favorable to the Plan than the terms that would be negotiated at arm's length between unrelated third parties under similar circumstances.

    (f) The contributed value of the Property will be equal to the Property's fair market value, as determined by the Independent Appraiser on the transaction date, less a 35 percent discount to account for certain marketability limitations.

    Notice to Interested Parties

    The persons who may be interested in the publication in the Federal Register of the Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice) include all individuals who are participants in the Plan. It is represented that such interested persons will be notified of the publication of the Notice by first class mail to such interested person's last known address within fifteen (15) days of publication of the Notice in the Federal Register. Such mailing will contain a copy of the Notice, as it appears in the Federal Register on the date of publication, plus a copy of the Supplemental Statement, as required, pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2), which will advise all interested persons of their right to comment on and/or to request a hearing. All written comments or hearing requests must be received by the Department from interested persons within 45 days of the publication of this proposed exemption in the Federal Register.

    All comments will be made available to the public.

    Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joseph Brennan of the Department at (202) 693-8456. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) and Elco Insurance Company Limited (Elco) (Together, the Applicants) Located in Indianapolis, IN and North Charleston, SC, Respectively [Application No. L-11784] Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).

    Section I. Transactions

    If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(D) and 406(b) of the Act shall not apply to the reinsurance of risks and the receipt of premiums therefrom by Elco, an affiliate of Lilly, as the term “affiliate” is defined in Section III(a)(1) below, in connection with insurance contracts sold by American United Life Insurance Company (AUL) or any successor insurance company (a Fronting Insurer) to provide optional group term life insurance benefits (Optional Group Life) to participants in the Eli Lilly and Company Life Insurance and Death Benefit Plan (the Life Insurance Plan), a component of the Eli Lilly and Company Employee Welfare Plan (the Plan), provided the conditions set forth in Section II, below, are satisfied.

    Section II. Conditions

    (a) Elco—

    (1) Is a party in interest with respect to the Plan by reason of a stock or partnership affiliation with Lilly that is described in section 3(14)(G) of the Act;

    (2) Is licensed to sell insurance or conduct reinsurance operations in at least one state as defined in section 3(10) of the Act;

    (3) Has obtained a Certificate of Authority from the Director of the Department of Insurance of its domiciliary state (South Carolina), which has neither been revoked nor suspended;

    (4)(A) Has undergone and shall continue to undergo an examination by an independent certified public accountant for its last completed taxable year immediately prior to the taxable year of the reinsurance transaction covered by this proposed exemption, if granted; or

    (B) Has undergone a financial examination (within the meaning of the law of South Carolina) by the Director of the South Carolina Department of Insurance (SCDI) within five (5) years prior to the end of the year preceding the year in which such reinsurance transaction has occurred; and

    (5) Is licensed to conduct reinsurance transactions by South Carolina, whose law requires that an actuarial review of reserves be conducted annually by an independent firm of actuaries and reported to the appropriate regulatory authority;

    (b) The Life Insurance Plan pays no more than adequate consideration for the insurance contracts;

    (c) No commissions are paid by the Life Insurance Plan with respect to the direct sale of such contracts or the reinsurance thereof;

    (d) Effective January 1, 2012, there was an immediate and objectively determined benefit to Plan participants and beneficiaries in the form of increased benefits. Any modification to such benefits will at least approximate the increase in benefits that are effective January 1, 2012, as described in the Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice) and will continue in all subsequent years of each contract of reinsurance involving Elco and a Fronting Insurer and in every renewal of each contract of reinsurance involving Elco and a Fronting Insurer;

    (e) In the initial year and in subsequent years of coverage provided by a Fronting Insurer, the formulae used by the Fronting Insurer to calculate premiums will be similar to formulae used by other insurers providing comparable optional life insurance coverage under similar programs. Furthermore, the premium charge calculated in accordance with the formulae will be reasonable and will be comparable to the premiums charged by the Fronting Insurer and its competitors with the same or a better rating providing the same coverage under comparable programs;

    (f) The Fronting Insurer has a financial strength rating of “A” or better from A. M. Best Company (A. M. Best). The reinsurance arrangement between the Fronting Insurer and Elco will be indemnity insurance only (i.e., the Fronting Insurer will not be relieved of liability to the Life Insurance Plan should Elco be unable or unwilling to cover any liability arising from the reinsurance arrangement);

    (g) The Life Insurance Plan retains an independent, qualified fiduciary, as defined in Section III(c) (the Independent Fiduciary) to analyze the transactions and to render an opinion that the requirements of Section II(a) through (f) and (h) of this proposed exemption have been satisfied;

    (h) Participants and beneficiaries in the Plan will receive in subsequent years of every contract of reinsurance involving Elco and the Fronting Insurer the benefit increases effective January 1, 2012, as described in the Notice, or benefit increases no less in value, as determined by the Independent Fiduciary, than the objectively determined increased benefits such participants and beneficiaries received effective January 1, 2012;

    (i) The Independent Fiduciary will monitor the transactions proposed herein on behalf of the Plan on a continuing basis to ensure such transactions remain in the interest of the Plan; take all appropriate actions to safeguard the interests of the Plan; and enforce compliance with all conditions and obligations imposed on any party dealing with the Plan; and

    (j) In connection with the provision to participants in the Life Insurance Plan of the Optional Group Life which is reinsured by Elco, the Independent Fiduciary will review all contracts (and any renewal of such contracts) of the reinsurance of risks and the receipt of premiums therefrom by Elco and must determine that the requirements of this proposed exemption, if granted, and the terms of the benefit enhancements continue to be satisfied.

    Section III. Definitions

    (a) The term “affiliate” includes:

    (1) Any person directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the person;

    (2) Any officer, director, employee, relative, or partner in any such person; and

    (3) Any corporation or partnership of which such person is an officer, director, partner, or employee.

    (b) The term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.

    (c) The term “Independent Fiduciary” means a person who:

    (1) Is not an affiliate of Lilly or Elco and does not hold an ownership interest in Lilly, Elco, or affiliate of Lilly or Elco;

    (2) is not a fiduciary with respect to the Plan prior to its appointment to serve as the Independent Fiduciary;

    (3) has acknowledged in writing that:

    (i) It is a fiduciary and has agreed not to participate in any decision with respect to any transaction in which it has an interest that might affect its best judgment as a fiduciary; and

    (ii) it has appropriate technical training or experience to perform the services contemplated by the exemption, if granted;

    (4) For purposes of this definition, no organization or individual may serve as Independent Fiduciary for any fiscal year in which the gross income received by such organization or individual (or partnership or corporation of which such organization or individual is an officer, director, or 10 percent or more partner or shareholder) from Lilly, Elco, or affiliates of Lilly or Elco, (including amounts received for services as an independent fiduciary under any prohibited transaction exemption granted by the Department) for that fiscal year exceeds two percent (2%) of such organization's or individual's gross income from all sources for the prior fiscal year;

    (5) No organization or individual which is an Independent Fiduciary and no partnership or corporation of which such organization or individual is an officer, director or ten percent (10%) or more partner or shareholder may acquire any property from, sell any property to, or borrow any funds from Lilly, Elco, or affiliates of Lilly or Elco during the period that such organization or individual serves as an Independent Fiduciary and continuing for a period of six months after such organization or individual ceases to be an Independent Fiduciary or negotiates any such transaction during the period that such organization or individual serves as an Independent Fiduciary; and

    (6) In the event a successor Independent Fiduciary is appointed to represent the interests of the Plan with respect to the subject transaction, there should be no lapse in time between the resignation or termination of the former Independent Fiduciary and the appointment of the successor Independent Fiduciary.

    Summary of Facts and Representations 6

    6 The Summary of Facts and Representations is based on the Applicant's representations and does not reflect the views of the Department, unless indicated otherwise.

    Background

    1. Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly), headquartered in Indianapolis, IN, is one of the world's largest manufacturers and distributors of pharmaceuticals. Lilly also engages in research and development. Lilly employs over 17,000 employees in the United States and over 38,000 employees worldwide. In 2012, Lilly had net income of approximately $4.1 billion and revenue of $22.6 billion.

    2. Elco Insurance Company Limited (Elco) is a captive insurance and reinsurance corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly International Corporation, which itself is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lilly. Elco was incorporated in Bermuda on July 10, 1975, to provide direct coverage to Lilly for various exposures. On June 15, 2011, the State of South Carolina Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration issued a Certificate of Authority permitting a branch of Elco to transact the business of a captive insurance company. JLT Insurance Management (Bermuda) Ltd. performs the accounting functions, records retention, and other management and administrative services for Elco. Wilmington Trust performs the same services for the Elco branch. Elco is subject to regulation by the South Carolina Department of Insurance and is required to maintain $500,000 of capital and surplus at all times. Elco currently provides the following insurance coverage to Lilly and its subsidiaries: Property, Transit, Workers' Compensation, Auto, General Liability, and Product Liability. As of December 31, 2012, Elco had total assets of $141,923,761 and the gross written premium was $18,303,690.

    3. Lilly sponsors the Eli Lilly and Company Employee Welfare Plan (the Plan), which provides eligible employees with medical, life insurance, dental, disability, death benefits, and other welfare benefits. As of December 31, 2011, the Plan provided benefits to approximately 25,334 active and retired participants. The total gross assets of the Plan as of December 31, 2011, were $1,372,933,491.

    4. The Applicants represent that Lilly currently provides life insurance and death benefits to eligible employees through the Eli Lilly and Company Life Insurance and Death Benefits Plan (the Life Insurance Plan), which is a component of the Plan. Benefits under the Life Insurance Plan include basic life insurance, for which Lilly pays 100 percent of the cost, and optional group term life insurance benefits (Optional Group Life), for which employee participants pay 100 percent of the cost. According to the Applicants, participants in the Life Insurance Plan may elect, at their own discretion, Optional Group Life that includes Supplemental and Dependent Coverage.7 Supplemental Coverage is equal to one, two, three, four, or five times a participant's base salary. The maximum Supplemental Coverage amount is $3 million. Dependent Coverage is equal to $10,000 per child ($2,000 for children under 6 months of age) and $10,000, $20,000, or $50,000 for a spouse or domestic partner. The Applicants represent that policy premiums are determined by American United Life Insurance Company (AUL), which insures the Optional Group Life. The Applicants state that participants who elect dependent spouse or domestic partner coverage pay premiums based on age and amount of coverage; participants pay child coverage premiums at a fixed rate (currently, $0.375 per month).

    7 The Applicant represents that approximately 68% of employees who are eligible for Optional Group Life purchase such coverage.

    5. The Applicants represent that the Supplemental and Dependent coverages include an Accelerated Benefit Option which allows part of a participant's or dependent's Optional Group Life benefit to be paid while the participant or dependent is still living if the participant or dependent is terminally ill and has a limited life expectancy. The Applicants represent that “terminally ill” or “a limited life expectancy” means an injury or sickness that, despite appropriate medical care, is reasonably expected to result in the person's death within twelve months from the date of payment of the Accelerated Life Benefit, as determined by AUL. The Applicants represent that AUL may require that the person be examined at AUL's expense by AUL's choice of physician. The Applicants further explain that utilizing the Accelerated Benefit Option reduces the benefit that would otherwise be payable upon the participant's or dependent's death.

    6. The Applicants represent that Lilly reached an agreement with AUL,8 a party unrelated to Lilly and its affiliates, for AUL to serve prospectively as the direct insurer for the Optional Group Life coverage of the Life Insurance Plan and then contract with Elco to reinsure a portion of such coverage.

    8 The Applicants represent that AUL's overall financial strength is rated A+ by A. M. Best.

    Past Reinsurance Arrangement With Elco

    7. According to the Applicants, the Department recently investigated the Plan with respect to a prior reinsurance transaction that began in 1993 in which Elco had been reinsuring certain Optional Group Life coverage for Lilly that were provided under the Plan. According to the Applicants, after counsel advised Lilly and Elco that, absent an individual exemption, the Department might take the position that the reinsurance arrangement could involve one or more prohibited transactions, reinsurance payments to Elco ceased and Lilly and Elco began a process of correcting the prior transactions. According to the Applicants, Lilly paid correction expenses and took a number of steps to correct the transactions, as described below.

    8. The Applicants represent that, as part of Lilly's corrective actions, Keith A. Dall, a principal with Milliman Actuarial Services (Milliman) reviewed the transactions. In a written report, Mr. Dall determined that the premiums paid by the Life Insurance Plan for the optional dependent and life insurance coverages during the period from March 14, 2005, through October 2010,9 were within the range of premiums that would have been charged for comparable coverage by insurers comparable to AUL.

    9 According to the Applicants, Lilly and Elco became aware of the prohibited transactions in October 2010, at which time they put the reinsurance arrangement on hold pending the issuance of an individual exemption.

    9. In addition to the review by Mr. Dall, the Applicants represent that Elco made restorative payments for the Life Insurance Plan's benefit, which represented Elco's profits during the relevant period.10 The Applicants state that Elco used the Department's Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program Online Calculator (the Online Calculator) to determine the appropriate amount. The Applicants further represent that in order to ensure that Elco's restorative payments could only be used for the benefit of participants and beneficiaries in the Life Insurance Plan, the payments were made to AUL to be credited to a Premium Pre-Payment Account (the Account) established for the Plan's benefit. According to the Applicants, the Account will pay 25 percent of each premium payment due under the Optional Group Life policies until the Account is exhausted, and during such time, participants electing Optional Group Life will have their premiums reduced by a corresponding 25 percent.11 The Applicants represent that AUL agreed to credit interest on the Account monthly at a rate equal to the two-year U.S. Treasury Bond rate as of July 27, 2011. The Applicants further represent that, under a written agreement, Elco, AUL, and the Employee Benefits Committee of Eli Lilly and Company (the Committee), acting as plan administrator, recognize that the amounts credited to the Account and any earnings credited thereto are the assets of the Plan, which may not be used for any purposes other than to provide benefits and pay reasonable expenses in accordance with the terms of the Plan. Thus, according to the Applicants, Elco's total restorative payment to the Account was $3,929,834.64.12 The Applicants represent that the restorative payment did not involve any transaction that could be prohibited within the meaning of section 406(a) or (b) of the Act. In this regard, according to the Applicants, (i) Elco made the restorative payment to AUL for the Plan's benefit and there was no transfer of assets from the Life Insurance Plan or the Plan, or use of assets of the Life Insurance Plan or other Plan assets for the benefit of Elco or Lilly or another party in interest, and (ii) neither the Committee nor any other person made a waiver of remedies that might be available to the Life Insurance Plan or the Plan with respect to the prohibited reinsurance transaction. Furthermore, the Applicant states that, to the extent that AUL's administration of the Account may be deemed to constitute a provision of services to the Life Insurance Plan or the Plan by AUL, such services should be exempted by virtue of the statutory exemption under section 408(b)(2) of the Act.13

    10 The Applicants explain that profits were measured as the sum of all payments received by Elco from AUL in connection with Elco's reinsurance of the relevant coverages, plus the total interest earned on the premiums received by Elco.

    11 Under the Life Insurance Plan, all premiums for Optional Group Life are paid by participants who elect such coverage.

    12 The Applicants state that the total amount received by Elco from AUL in premiums for reinsurance during the period was $3,073,906.00. The Applicants explain that total interest earned on the premiums was determined using the Online Calculator, and as of August 1, 2011, lost earnings totaled $854,878.11. According to the Applicants, on August 1, 2011, Elco made a payment to AUL for credit to the Account in the amount of $3,928,784.11. However, because AUL did not receive this payment until August 2, 2011, a supplementary interest payment was made on August 3, 2011, in the amount of $1,050.53.

    13 The Department is expressing no view herein as to the Applicants' assertions regarding the absence of prohibited transactions in connection with payment of the restorative payment to AUL for the benefit of the Life Insurance Plan and the Plan. Furthermore, the Department is expressing no view herein as to whether AUL's administration of the Account may be deemed to constitute a provision of services or whether section 408(b)(2) would be applicable to such transaction.

    10. The Applicants represent that the past prohibited reinsurance transactions were reported on the Plan's 2009 Form 5500, filed with the Department in October 2010, and the correction was disclosed on the Plan's 2010 Form 5500. According to the Applicants, the Department examined the prohibited reinsurance transactions as a part of an investigation and determined that it would take no further actions with respect to the matter because Lilly had made the corrective payments described above. The Department issued a final closing letter on December 12, 2012.

    Proposed Reinsurance Arrangement With Elco

    11. The Applicants explain that if this proposed exemption is granted, AUL will serve as the direct insurer for the Optional Group Life part of the Life Insurance Plan and then contract with Elco to provide reinsurance coverage for 75 percent of Optional Group Life risks within the $250,000 to $600,000 band of exposure.14 The Applicants state that the reinsurance agreement with AUL does not have a set term, but either Elco or AUL can terminate the agreement no sooner than 60 days after mailing notice to the other party. AUL may also terminate the agreement: (1) If annual premiums payable for the Optional Group Life drop below $800,000 or if Lilly ceases to own more than 50 percent of Elco; (2) upon insolvency, bankruptcy, receivership, rehabilitation, or liquidation of Elco; or (3) if Elco is unable or unwilling to meet one or more of its obligations under the agreement and fails to cure the default within 30 days of notification from AUL. The Applicants represent that the benefits to Lilly and Elco of this reinsurance arrangement include eliminating the insurer's margins (in this case AUL), more control over the life insurance program, access to data about the Life Insurance Plan, and the possibility that it could write other employer-specific coverages in the captive.

    14 For example, the Applicants explain that if there is a claim on the Optional Group Life policy for $450,000, AUL will be responsible for 100% of the first $250,000. Elco would cover 75% of the remaining $200,000 ($150,000) with AUL remaining responsible for 25% of that $200,000 ($50,000). So in this scenario, AUL's total exposure is $300,000 and Elco's total exposure is $150,000. Additionally, the Applicants represent that in the event Elco becomes insolvent, AUL would be responsible for the entire $450,000.

    12. The Applicants state that AUL's reinsurance agreement with Elco (the Reinsurance Agreement) will be “indemnity only”—that is, AUL will not be relieved of its liability for benefits under the Life Insurance Plan if Elco is unable or unwilling to satisfy the liabilities arising from the reinsurance arrangement. The Applicants further represent that the reinsurance arrangement is a “quota share” arrangement, meaning that Elco will receive 75 percent of the premium applicable to the reinsured risk less ceding commission and risk charges.15 The Applicants represent that although Elco is entitled to a share of the premium, Elco has no discretion with respect to denying a claim made by Lilly's Life Insurance Plan participants and beneficiaries. Finally, the Applicants note that AUL does not insure, and Elco does not reinsure, the basic life insurance benefits under the Life Insurance Plan.

    15 The Applicants note that in Fiscal Year 2012, Lilly would have received 51.4% of the total premium. However all premiums to which Elco is entitled continue to be paid to AUL until an individual exemption is issued.

    13. The Applicants represent that Elco is a party in interest with respect to the Plan pursuant to section 3(14)(G) of the Act. Therefore, the reinsurance transaction would result in the indirect transfer of Life Insurance Plan premium payments, which are plan assets, to Elco, in violation of ERISA section 406(a)(1)(D), which prohibits the transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a party in interest, of any assets of the plan. Additionally, the Applicants represent that the transactions could constitute violations of section 406(b)(1) of the Act, which prohibits a fiduciary from dealing with the assets of a plan in his interest or for his own account, and section 406(b)(3) of the Act, which prohibits a fiduciary from receiving any consideration for his own personal account from any party dealing with a plan in connection with a transaction involving plan assets. In this regard, the Applicants suggest that the Benefits Committee could be found to have used plan assets for the benefit of Lilly's affiliate, Elco, by causing the Life Insurance Plan to pay premiums to AUL under insurance contracts they know will be reinsured by Elco. The Applicants also indicate that the proposed reinsurance transaction could violate section 406(b)(2) of the Act, which prohibits a fiduciary from acting in any transaction involving a plan on behalf of a party whose interests are adverse to the interests of the Plan. In this regard, the Applicants note that, in connection with the subject reinsurance transactions, Elco has an interest that is adverse to the interests of the Plan. Therefore, Lilly could be found to have acted in a transaction involving the Life Insurance Plan on behalf of a party whose interests are adverse to the interests of the Life Insurance Plan by causing Elco to reinsure the Plan's contract with AUL for Optional Group Life. Accordingly, this proposed exemption, if granted, will provide relief from the prohibitions set forth in sections 406(a)(1)(D) and 406(b) of the Act for the reinsurance transactions and the corresponding premiums that Elco will receive.

    Enhancements

    14. The Applicants note that, since January 1, 2012, in anticipation of the proposed exemptive relief described herein, certain enhancements (the Enhancements) have been provided to participants in the Eli Lilly Health Plan (the Health Plan), which is a component of the Plan. In this regard, the Applicants state that the Enhancements described below would not have been added to the Health Plan but for the proposed arrangement that is the subject of this notice. The Applicants state that Lilly is bearing the entire cost of such Enhancements. The Applicants explain that all programs are voluntary and consist of the following:

    (a) Enhanced Coaching Program—provides additional coaching for health conditions not previously covered. The program also provides a new predictive model to identify participants who would most likely benefit from coaching;

    (b) Biometric Screenings—participants have multiple options in which to participate in the voluntary screenings. The screenings include data on height, weight, waist circumference, full lipid panel, and glucose testing. Each participant can obtain a well-being report through a web portal and then share it with his or her personal physician, health coach, or employee health services practitioner to help detect health risks earlier. If a participant receives a result that is critically abnormal, the participant receives a follow-up call to explain the results and any available Plan or wellness program resources for that particular condition or risk factor; and

    (c) Enhanced Health Risk Assessment/Well-Being Assessment—a more comprehensive voluntary health and wellness assessment will combine questions on physical and emotional health, productivity, work environment, and healthy behaviors. This assessment is intended to help employees better understand their health risks and areas where behaviors may hinder their health. It will be used in connection with the biometric screenings to communicate with individuals about voluntary coaching programs that would be medically beneficial to such individuals based on their particular condition or risk factors.16

    16 The Applicants note that the Plan may offer more incentives to encourage participants to undergo biometric screenings and complete the Well-Being Assessment.

    15. The Applicants represents that Lilly has incurred substantial costs related to the enhanced wellness program. The Applicants represent that, although it is difficult to break down in its entirety, the following costs are associated with the enhanced wellness program: On-site health coach for Indianapolis sites ($200,000 per year); Web site portal ($250,000 per year); On-site biometric screenings for all U.S. employees (approx. $50/employee); and Counseling, support groups, one-on-one coaching, and smoking cessation products (approx. $12,000 per year).

    16. The Applicants represent that if the Enhancements are modified, alternative enhancements of at least the same approximate value, as determined by an independent, qualified fiduciary will continue in all subsequent years of the reinsurance arrangement.

    Independent Fiduciary

    17. In connection with this exemption request, the Applicants represent that they have retained Keith A. Dall, from Milliman, to act as the Independent Fiduciary (the Independent Fiduciary) on behalf of the Plan for the purpose of evaluating, and if appropriate, approving the subject transactions.17 In this regard, Mr. Dall is responsible for conducting a due diligence review and analysis of the proposed transactions and for providing a written opinion explaining why he believes the arrangement meets the Department's requirements for an administrative exemption. The Applicants represent that Mr. Dall will also determine whether the conditions of the proposed exemption and the terms of the benefits enhancements continue to be satisfied.

    17 The Applicants state that Mr. Dall, or such other Independent Fiduciary as shall be retained, shall be paid by Lilly.

    18. Mr. Dall certifies that he is qualified to serve as the Independent Fiduciary in that, among other things, he has appropriate training, experience, and facilities to act on behalf of the Plan in accordance with the fiduciary duties and responsibilities prescribed by the Act. Mr. Dall represents that he and Milliman are independent of the parties to the covered transactions because Milliman's gross income from Lilly for the prior fiscal year does not exceed two percent of Milliman's gross annual income. Mr. Dall also represents that neither he nor Milliman was a fiduciary with respect to the Plan prior to this appointment. Moreover, Mr. Dall represents that neither he nor Milliman is an affiliate, officer, director, employee, or partner of Elco, Lilly, or AUL. Furthermore, the Applicants state that Milliman is not a corporation or partnership in which Lilly or Elco has an ownership interest or is a partner and that Milliman does not, on its own account, own any shares or otherwise have an ownership interest in Lilly, Elco, or any of their affiliates. Finally, the Applicants represent that Milliman will acknowledge in writing its acceptance of fiduciary responsibility and has agreed not to participate in any decision with respect to any transaction in which it has an interest that might affect its best judgment as a fiduciary. Moreover, neither Milliman, nor any partnership or corporation of which Milliman is an officer, director, or ten percent or more partner or shareholder, intends to acquire any property from, sell any property to, or borrow funds from Lilly, Elco, or their affiliates while serving as the Independent Fiduciary or for six months after serving as the Independent Fiduciary. If it becomes necessary in the future to appoint a successor Independent Fiduciary to replace Milliman, the Applicants represent that they will notify the Department sixty (60) days in advance of such appointment. Any successor will have the same, or substantially similar, responsibilities, experience, and independence as Milliman. If such a successor is appointed, the Applicants represent there will be no lapse in time between the resignation or termination of the former Independent Fiduciary and the appointment of the successor Independent Fiduciary.

    19. The Applicants represent that in connection with the reinsurance transactions, Mr. Dall reviewed, among other things: A draft of Eli Lilly and Elco's request to the Department for an administrative exemption; Elco's audited financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2012; the insurance rates between Lilly and AUL; the reinsurance agreement between AUL and Elco; and documentation summarizing the Enhancements. Furthermore, Mr. Dall produced an Independent Fiduciary Report (the Independent Fiduciary Report) wherein he considered the covered transactions and made the following determinations:

    Mr. Dall represents that Milliman compared the insurance rates between Lilly and AUL to rates for similar group supplemental life and dependent life benefits and found them to be competitive and within normal ranges. In addition to this, Mr. Dall represents that Milliman reviewed the premium rate history with the claims and expense history on this block of business and found the loss ratios to be reasonable relative to the industry and consistent with the intended loss ratio stated in the AUL actuarial memorandum provided by AUL. Mr. Dall represents that Milliman believes that other insurance carriers would offer similar rates given the experience on this block of business. Additionally, Mr. Dall confirmed that he received a copy of the reinsurance agreement between AUL and Elco and the Plan pays no commissions with respect to the reinsurance with Elco.

    Mr. Dall also confirmed that Elco is licensed to conduct insurance transactions, including reinsurance transactions, in the State of South Carolina, which requires captive reinsurers to file an annual actuarial opinion prepared by an independent actuary. Additionally, Mr. Dall confirmed that AUL, the Fronting Insurer, received a rating of A+ from A.M. Best, as of May 8, 2013.

    Finally, Mr. Dall determined that the Enhancements described above will result in an immediate and objectively determined benefit to the Plan's participants and beneficiaries through, among other things, the offer of coaching, biometric screenings, and a well-being assessment.

    Statutory Findings

    20. The Applicants represent that the proposed exemption is administratively feasible. The reinsurance of the Optional Group Life contracts is governed by a reinsurance agreement between AUL and Elco that is subject to review by the Independent Fiduciary and can be audited to determine compliance with the conditions of this proposed exemption, if granted. Furthermore, the proposed exemption will not require continued monitoring or other involvement by the Department.

    21. The Applicants also represent that the proposed exemption is in the interest of the Plan because it will include a material increase in Plan benefits for participants and beneficiaries through the Enhancements, described above. Specifically, Lilly amended the Plan effective January 1, 2012, to, among other things: (a) Enhance the Coaching Program offered under the Health Plan's wellness programs; (b) provide new biometric screenings under the wellness programs; and (c) enhance the Health Risk Assessment offered under the wellness programs. Additionally, the Applicants represent that captive reinsurance results in lower premiums because the captive does not charge “margin.” According to the Applicants, this, in turn, allows Lilly to create additional value in the Plan or lower its costs and those of its employees in contributory arrangements.

    22. The Applicants represent that the proposed exemption is protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan because this proposed exemption, if granted, will require an Independent Fiduciary to review and approve the reinsurance transaction and the Enhancements. Moreover, the Applicants state that the Independent Fiduciary will monitor the covered transactions on a continuing basis to ensure such transactions remain in the interests of the Plan, take all appropriate actions to safeguard the interests of the Plan, and enforce compliance with all conditions and obligations imposed on any party dealing with the Plan. Specifically, this proposed exemption will require that the Independent Fiduciary analyze the subject transactions and render an opinion regarding whether certain conditions in this proposed exemption were satisfied, including that: The Life Insurance Plan pays no more than adequate consideration for the Optional Group Life contracts; the Plan pays no commissions with respect to the direct sale or reinsurance of such contracts; as of January 1, 2012, there is an immediate and objectively determined benefit to participants and beneficiaries of the Plan in the form of increased benefits, and if the benefits are materially modified, benefits of the same approximate value will continue in all future years of reinsurance and in every renewal of reinsurance; the reinsurance arrangement is indemnity insurance only; any Fronting Insurer will have a financial strength rating of “A” or better from A.M. Best; the Fronting Insurer calculates premiums according to formulae that are similar to formulae used by other insurers who provide comparable Optional Group Life coverage under similar programs; the premiums charged by the Fronting Insurer are reasonable and comparable to the premiums charged for the same coverage, under similar programs by the Fronting Insurer or its competitors who have the same or better rating from A.M. Best. Finally, the Independent Fiduciary will render an opinion about whether participants and beneficiaries in the Plan received, as of January 1, 2012, an immediate and objectively determined benefit through the Enhancements, and if the Enhancements are materially modified, Enhancements of the same approximate value in all future years of reinsurance and in every renewal of reinsurance.

    Summary

    23. In summary, the Applicants represent that the proposed reinsurance transactions will meet the criteria of section 408(a) of the Act since, among other things:

    (a) Elco meets the affiliation, licensure, certification, and examination requirements specified in Section II(a)(1)-(5) of this proposed exemption;

    (b) The Life Insurance Plan will pay no more than adequate consideration for the insurance contracts;

    (c) No commissions will be paid by the Life Insurance Plan with respect to the direct sale of such contracts or the reinsurance thereof;

    (d) Effective January 1, 2012, there was an immediate and objectively determined benefit to Plan participants and beneficiaries in the form of increased benefits. If the benefits are materially modified, benefit increases of the same approximate value, as determined by the Independent Fiduciary, will continue in all subsequent years and in every renewal of each contract of reinsurance involving Elco and a Fronting Insurer. Any such modification in benefits will approximate the increase in benefits that are effective January 1, 2012;

    (e) In the initial year and in subsequent years of coverage provided by a Fronting Insurer, the formulae used by the Fronting Insurer to calculate premiums will be similar to formulae used by other insurers providing comparable coverage under similar programs. Furthermore, the premium charge calculated in accordance with the formulae will be reasonable and will be comparable to the premiums charged by the Fronting Insurer and its competitors with the same or a better rating providing the same coverage under comparable programs;

    (f) The Fronting Insurer has a financial strength rating of “A” or better from A.M. Best, and the reinsurance arrangement between the Fronting Insurer and Elco will be indemnity insurance only;

    (g) The Life Insurance Plan retains an Independent Fiduciary or successor to such fiduciary to analyze the transactions and to render an opinion that certain requirements of the proposed exemption, if granted, have been satisfied;

    (h) Participants and beneficiaries in the Plan will receive in subsequent years of every contract of reinsurance involving Elco and the Fronting Insurer the benefit increases effective January 1, 2012, or benefit increases no less in value, as determined by the Independent Fiduciary, than the objectively determined increased benefits such participants and beneficiaries received effective January 1, 2012;

    (i) The Independent Fiduciary will monitor the transactions proposed herein on behalf of the Plan on a continuing basis to ensure such transactions remain in the interest of the Plan; take all appropriate actions to safeguard the interests of the Plan; and enforce compliance with all conditions and obligations imposed on any party dealing with the Plan; and

    (j) The Independent Fiduciary will review any contract for, and any renewal of, the reinsurance of risks and the receipt of premiums therefrom by Elco and will determine whether the requirements of this proposed exemption and the terms of the Enhancements, as described herein, continue to be satisfied.

    Notice to Interested Persons

    Lilly will provide notice of the proposed exemption to all employees eligible to participate in the Plan within fourteen (14) calendar days of publication of the proposed exemption in the Federal Register. Lilly will provide the notice to all employees eligible to participate in the Plan via first-class mail. In addition to the proposed exemption, as published in the Federal Register, Lilly will provide all employees eligible to participate in the Plan with a supplemental statement, as required, under 29 CFR 2570.43(a)(2). The supplemental statement will inform the employees eligible to participate in the Plan of their right to comment on and to request a hearing with respect to this proposed exemption. The Department must receive all written comments and/or requests for a hearing within 44 days of the publication of this proposed exemption in the Federal Register. The Department will make all comments available to the public.

    Warning: If you submit a comment, EBSA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment, but DO NOT submit information that you consider to be confidential, or otherwise protected (such as Social Security number or an unlisted phone number) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jennifer Brown of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8352 (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Robert A. Handelman Roth IRA No. 2 (the New IRA) Located in Akron, Ohio [Application No. D-11798] Proposed Exemption

    Based on the facts and representations set forth in the application, the Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011). If the exemption is granted, the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A), (D) and (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the proposed purchase by the New IRA of a 100% ownership interest (the Interest) in RAH Properties Mill Street, Ltd. (the Company) from Robert A. Handelman (Mr. Handelman), the New IRA owner and a disqualified person with respect to the New IRA,18 provided the following conditions are met:

    18 Pursuant to 29 CFR 2510.3-2(d), the New IRA is not within the jurisdiction of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act). However, there is jurisdiction under Title II of the Act pursuant to section 4975 of the Code.

    (a) The purchase is a one-time transaction for cash;

    (b) At the time of the purchase, the price paid by the New IRA for the Interest is equal to the fair market value of such Interest, as established by a qualified independent appraiser in an updated appraisal report as of the date of the purchase;

    (c) The terms and conditions of the purchase are at least as favorable to the New IRA as those available in a comparable arm's length transaction with an unrelated third party;

    (d) The New IRA does not pay any commissions or other expenses in connection with the purchase, including the rollover of the cash distribution from the Robert A. Handelman Roth IRA No. 1 (the Existing IRA) to the New IRA;

    (e) Mr. Handelman pays all appropriate taxes that are associated with the rollover of the cash distribution from the Existing IRA to the New IRA in connection with the purchase; and

    (f) Mr. Handelman receives no compensation from the New IRA or the Existing IRA for his role as manager of the Company.

    Summary of Facts and Representations

    1. The Existing IRA is a Roth individual retirement account established under section 408(a) of the Code on May 1, 2012, by Robert A. Handelman, the IRA's sole participant. Beneficiaries of the Existing IRA are Mr. Handelman's children: Julie Wesel, Susan Masturzo, Sheryl Loudon, Lisa Handelman Jones, and Leslie Lopes. Fidelity Investments (Fidelity) is the Existing IRA's custodian. As of December 31, 2013, the Existing IRA had total assets of $760,282.63.

    2. The New IRA is also a Roth individual retirement account that was established under section 408(a) of the Code on May 1, 2012, by Robert A. Handelman, the New IRA's sole participant. Beneficiaries of the New IRA are Mr. Handelman's children. PENSCO Trust Company, a non-depository trust company, is the New IRA's custodian. Although the New IRA currently holds no assets, it will be funded within 60 days after the exemption is granted.

    3. Mr. Handelman has a 100% ownership interest (the Interest) in the Company, a limited liability company formed on July 14, 1998, and located in Akron, Ohio. The Company's operations consist exclusively of leasing commercial office real estate in a building located at 55 East Mill Street, Akron, Ohio (the Property). The Property, which is the Company's sole asset, is improved by a two-story brick office building that contains 11,448 square feet of space. The building also includes a partially-finished basement. The Property is not subject to a mortgage.

    As of December 31, 2013, the Company had total assets of $431,984.25, as reported in the Company's unaudited financial statements.19 The Property is carried on the Company's balance sheet at $247,314. Mr. Handelman manages the Company but he receives no compensation from the Company.

    19 It is represented that the Company does not have audited financial statements.

    4. Mr. Handelman purchased the Property in 1984 for $375,000 from Community Federal Savings Loan Association, an unrelated party. On December 28, 1984, Mr. Handelman, as lessor, and Chemstress Consultant Company, a company owned by Mr. Handelman, as lessee, entered into a lease of the Property (the Chemstress Lease) commencing on January 1, 1985. The Chemstress Lease provided for an initial five-year term, with two five-year renewal options. On July 31, 1998, Mr. Handelman contributed the Property to the Company. At the expiration of the second lease renewal period, the Chemstress Lease was extended on a month-to-month basis from January 1, 2000 until May 31, 2005. The Property was vacant from June 1, 2005 until July 14, 2005.

    5. Since July 14, 2005, the Company has leased the Property to the Akron Summit County Community Action, Inc. (ASCCA), an unrelated party.20 The current lease is a three-year lease, which runs from May 1, 2013 through April 30, 2016. The current monthly rent is $14,052.90. The lease is also subject to two three-year renewal options.

    20 The first lease between the Company and ASCCA expired on April 30, 2013.

    6. An individual exemption is requested from the Department to allow the New IRA to purchase the Interest from Mr. Handelman. The Interest consists of the Property and the Company's rights as lessor under the ASCCA lease. To enable the IRA to purchase the Interest, Mr. Handelman will take a distribution in cash from the Existing IRA in the amount of the purchase price and will roll over the full cash distribution into the New IRA. Mr. Handelman represents that he cannot use the Existing IRA for the purchase because Fidelity, the custodian, cannot hold real estate.

    It is represented that Mr. Handelman hopes that the New IRA will continue for many years to provide for his children, whom he has designated as the beneficiaries of such IRA. Given these intentions, Mr. Handelman would like the New IRA to invest in an asset that will continue to generate income and appreciation for the benefit of his family for the long term. Thus, he believes the New IRA's ownership of the Interest will fulfill this goal. Further, Mr. Handelman notes that the stock market is very volatile and fixed income securities currently have very low yields with the potential for substantial principal depreciation as interest rates rise. Therefore, Mr. Handelman does not believe other assets such as these will provide the New IRA with the long-term stability and growth in value that he seeks for such IRA.

    7. The New IRA will acquire the Interest for the fair market value of such Interest, as determined by a qualified independent appraiser in an appraisal that is updated on the date of the purchase. The New IRA will pay cash for the Interest and it will not pay any commissions or other expenses in connection with the purchase, or in connection with the rollover of the cash distribution from the Existing IRA to the New IRA. The terms and conditions of the purchase will be at least as favorable to the New IRA as those available in a comparable arm's length transaction with an unrelated third party. Finally, Mr. Handelman will pay all appropriate taxes that are associated with the transfer of any assets from the Existing IRA to the New IRA.

    8. Section 4975(c)(1)(A) of the Code prohibits, in part, any direct or indirect sale of any property between a plan and a disqualified person. Section 4975(c)(1)(D) of the Code prohibits any direct or indirect transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a disqualified person of the income or assets of a plan. The term “disqualified person” is defined under section 4975(e)(2)(A) of the Code to include a person who is a fiduciary. Section 4975(e)(3) of the Code defines the term “fiduciary” to include, in pertinent part, any person who exercises any discretionary authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets. In addition, section 4975(c)(1)(E) of the Code prohibits a fiduciary from dealing with the income or assets of a plan in the fiduciary's own interest or for his or her own account. Finally, section 4975(e)(1)(B) of the Code defines the term “plan” to include an individual retirement account described in section 408(a) of the Code.

    As a fiduciary with respect to the New IRA, Mr. Handelman is a disqualified person with respect to such IRA under section 4975(e)(2)(A) of the Code. Accordingly, because Mr. Handelman is a disqualified person with respect to the New IRA, the proposed purchase by the New IRA of Mr. Handelman's 100% Interest in the Company would be a transaction prohibited by section 4975(c)(1)(A) of the Code, and constitute a direct transfer to Mr. Handelman of the assets of the New IRA in violation of section 4975(c)(1)(D) of the Code. In addition, the proposed purchase would violate section 4975(c)(1)(E) of the Code because, as a fiduciary, Mr. Handelman would be engaged in a prohibited act of self-dealing by dealing with the assets of the New IRA for his own interest or his own account in connection with the purchase. Accordingly, in the absence of an administrative exemption, the proposed transaction would violate the foregoing Code provisions.

    9. The Property underlying the Interest has been appraised by Russell L. Kitzberger, GAA, RAA, Certified General Appraiser of Pointer Appraisal Services, LLC (Pointer), which is located in Akron, Ohio. Mr. Kitzberger represents that he has no familial or personal relationship with Mr. Handelman or the Company, and that Pointer derived less than 1% of its 2013 annual income and less than 1% of its 2014 annual income from Mr. Handelman.

    In an independent appraisal report dated July 19, 2013 (the Property Appraisal), Mr. Kitzberger stated that he considered the Sales Comparison Approach, Income Approach and Cost Approach to valuation. Based on the sales data in the Property Appraisal, Mr. Kitzberger characterized the real estate market as a “buyer's market,” with few properties trading due to poor economic and general real estate market conditions. Therefore, he gave the most weight in his valuation of the Property to the Income Approach, stating that the most probable price the Plan would receive on the Property would be determined by the purchasing party weighing the income production of the Property under the current market conditions for sale of leased fee estates. Based on this valuation, Mr. Kitzberger determined that, as of July 10, 2013, the Property had a leased fee value of $610,000. As of the same date, Mr. Kitzberger also determined that the Property had a projected lease rate of $13.00 per square foot for the first and second floor, and $7.00 per square foot for the basement area, bringing the potential gross annual rental income to $99,580 or $8,298 per month.

    In a letter addendum dated November 11, 2014, Mr. Kitzberger updated the Property Appraisal. Mr. Kitzberger represents that he completed the update to the Property Appraisal in a manner similar to the prior report by updating the prior information with more recent sales, lease and cost data. Based on this more recent data, Mr. Kitzberger concluded that, as of November 10, 2014, the fair market value of the Property remained at $610,000 and that the projected lease rates and rental income for the Property remained unchanged.

    10. In addition to the Property valuation, the Interest has been appraised by Jason R. Bogniard, MBA, ASA, AVA, EA of Apple Growth Partners (Apple Growth), a regional business advisory firm of certified public accountants and industry experts, having expertise in business valuation, forensic accounting and litigation support services, and employee benefit planning. Apple Growth has offices in Akron and Independence, Ohio.

    Mr. Bogniard certifies that he is independent of Mr. Handelman and the Company, and that the only services he has provided to either are the valuation services related to the appraisal of the Company. Further, Mr. Bogniard states that invoices and/or payment for services rendered to Mr. Handelman or the Company by Apple Growth represented less than 1% of Apple Growth's 2013 gross revenues and less than 1% of Apple Growth's 2014 gross revenues.

    In rendering this valuation, Mr. Bogniard represents that he considered, among other things, the following relevant factors, which are specified in Revenue Ruling 59-60: (a) The history and nature of the business; (b) the economic outlook of the United States and that of the specific industry in particular; (c) the book value of the subject entity and the financial condition of the business; (d) the earning capacity of the entity; (e) the dividend-paying capacity of the entity; (f) whether or not the firm has goodwill or other intangible value; (g) sales of the stock and size of the ownership block to be valued; and (h) the market price of publicly-traded stocks of corporations engaged in similar industries or lines of business. In addition, Mr. Bogniard states that he examined the following documents in preparing the valuation of the Interest: (a) Federal income tax returns for Mr. Handelman and his wife for the years 2008 through 2012; (b) tax asset detail reports for 2012 and 2013; (c) the Property Appraisal; (d) the ASCCA lease; and (e) the real estate tax assessment for the Property.

    11. In an appraisal report dated September 12, 2013 (the Company Appraisal), Mr. Bogniard took into consideration the Property Appraisal, among the other factors listed above, to value the Interest. Using the Cost (i.e., the Net Asset Value) Approach to valuation,21 Mr. Bogniard concluded that the Interest had an equity value of $610,000 as of July 31, 2013. Adjusting the value for lack of marketability, Mr. Bogniard determined that the fair market value of the Interest was $580,000 ($610,000 less a five percent discount for lack of marketability, rounded), as of the same date.

    21 Mr. Bogniard represented that on a going concern basis, earnings power, whether expressed in an income or market approach, is normally given the predominant consideration of the major factors. However, because the Company is a real estate holding company holding only a single parcel of commercial property, Mr. Bogniard represented that he utilized the value derived from the Net Asset Value method.

    In a letter dated November 17, 2014, Mr. Bogniard updated the Company Appraisal. Based on his review of Company financial statements through October 31, 2014, Summit County Auditor tax appraised values for the Property, the most recent Property valuation by Pointer, regional economic indicators, and cost of capital rates of return as of November 17, 2014, Mr. Bogniard concluded that the fair market value of the Interest remained at $580,000. Mr. Bogniard will again update the Company Appraisal on the date of the purchase.

    12. It is represented that the proposed transaction is administratively feasible because it will be easy to implement and will not require oversight by the Department. Additionally, all distributions by the Company will be made to the New IRA which will have control of the distributed funds.

    It is represented that the New IRA's purchase of the Interest is in the interest of such IRA, primarily because the acquisition would occur in a time of historically low commercial real estate values that are related to the current economic downturn. It is also represented that the rent owing to the Company under the ASCCA lease is favorable when compared to rents being collected on similar commercial properties.22 Moreover, it is represented that the Property's location in downtown Akron should provide the New IRA assurance that either the current lessee or another lessee will lease the Property when the ASCCA lease expires on April 30, 2016 because market rent for commercial real estate has returned to the levels prevalent prior to the onset of the global economic crisis in late 2008.

    22 See Representation 9 regarding comparable rental payments in the Akron, Ohio area.

    Finally, it is represented that the proposed transaction is protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of the New IRA because this is a permissible investment that has been properly valued through a recent valuation. Further, Mr. Handelman has agreed to pay the appropriate taxes in connection with the distribution of assets from the Existing IRA to the New IRA.

    13. In summary, it is represented that the proposed transaction will satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption under section 4975(c)(2) of the Code because:

    (a) The purchase will be a one-time transaction for cash;

    (b) At the time of the purchase, the price paid by the New IRA for the Interest will be equal to the fair market value of such Interest, as established by a qualified, independent appraiser in an updated appraisal report as of the date of the purchase;

    (c) The terms and conditions of the purchase will be at least as favorable to the New IRA as those available in a comparable arm's length transaction with an unrelated third party;

    (d) The New IRA will not pay any commissions or other expenses in connection with the purchase, including the rollover of the cash distribution from the Existing IRA to the New IRA;

    (e) Mr. Handelman will pay all appropriate taxes that are associated with the rollover of the cash distribution from the Existing IRA to the New IRA in connection with the purchase; and

    (f) Mr. Handelman will receive no compensation from the New IRA or the Existing IRA for his role as manager of the Company.

    Notice to Interested Persons

    As Mr. Handelman is the sole participant of the New IRA, it has been determined that there is no need to distribute the Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice) to interested persons. Therefore, comments and requests for a hearing must be received by the Department within thirty (30) days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register.

    All comments will be made available to the public.

    Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Anna Mpras Vaughan of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8565. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Roofers Local 195 Pension Fund (the Pension Fund) and Roofers Local 195 Joint Apprenticeship Training Fund (the Training Fund) Located in Cicero, NY Exemption Application Nos. D-11809 and L-11810 Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA or the Act), and section 4975(c)(2)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the Code), and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).23 If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(D), 406(b)(1), and 406(b)(2) of the Act, shall not apply to the sale (the Sale) of a building located at 6200 NYS Route 31, Cicero, New York (the Building) by the Pension Fund to the Training Fund, provided that the following conditions have been met:

    23 For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to section 406 of ERISA should be read to refer as well to the corresponding provisions of section 4975 of the Code.

    (a) At the time of the Sale, the Pension Fund receives a one-time cash payment in exchange for the Building, equal to the fair market value of the Building as established in an appraisal (the Appraisal) by a qualified, independent appraiser, updated on the date of the Sale, and provided to the Department no later than 60 days from the date of the Sale;

    (b) The Training Fund does not finance more than 80% of the cost of its purchase of the Building, and any financing must be with an independent, third-party bank (the Bank);

    (c) The Training Fund pays no fees, commissions or other expenses associated with the Sale, and no brokerage commissions associated with the Sale may be paid by either the Training Fund or the Pension Fund;

    (d) A qualified, independent fiduciary (the Independent Fiduciary), acting on behalf of the Training Fund, represents the Training Fund's interests for all purposes with respect to the Sale, including the financing of the Building, and must: Determine that it is in the best interest of the Training Fund to proceed with the Sale; review and approve the methodology used in the Appraisal; and ensure that such methodology is properly applied by the qualified, independent appraiser in determining the fair market value of the Building on the date of the Sale;

    (e) The Board of Trustees of the Pension Fund (the Pension Trustees), prior to entering the Sale, must determine that the Sale is feasible, in the interest of the Pension Fund, and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the Pension Fund;

    (f) The Pension Fund is not a party to the commercial mortgage between the Training Fund and the Bank;

    (g) Under the terms of the loan agreement between the Bank and the Training Fund, in the event of a default by the Training Fund, the Bank has recourse only against the Training Fund's interest in the Building and not against the general assets of the Training Fund; and

    (h) The terms and conditions of the Sale are at least as favorable to each Fund as those obtainable in an arms-length transaction with an unrelated third party.

    Summary of Facts and Representations 24

    24 The Summary of Facts and Representations is based on the Applicant's representations and does not reflect the views of the Department, unless indicated otherwise.

    Background

    1. The Roofers Local 195 Pension Fund (the Pension Fund) is a terminated qualified multiemployer defined benefit pension plan established by and between the Roofers Contractors' Association, Inc. and the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local Union No. 195 (the Union). The Pension Fund previously held investments with Madoff Investments, Inc. whereby the Pension Fund lost most of its value. Subsequently, the Pension Plan terminated in accordance with section 4041A(a)(2) of ERISA after finalizing a resolution with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the PBGC). As of July 9, 2014, the Pension Fund had no active participants, 96 retired participants and 160 terminated vested participants. There are currently 18 beneficiaries receiving benefits from the Pension Fund. As of June 26, 2014, the Pension Fund had approximately $857,049 in assets, and liabilities of $2,156,354.

    2. The Roofers Local 195 Joint Apprenticeship Training Fund (the Training Fund) is a multiemployer apprenticeship plan established pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the Roofing Contractors Association of Central New York and the Union for the purpose of providing necessary construction equipment, qualified instructors, books, models, sites where instruction and practice on such equipment can be available to persons eligible under the Training Fund's program, and related benefits. As of July 9, 2014, the Training Fund had 223 participants and no beneficiaries, as it does not offer any kind of death benefits to participants. As of June 26, 2014, the Training Plan had $949,860 (in cash and investments) in assets, and liabilities of $5,212.

    3. According to the Pension Fund and the Training Fund (together, the Funds), the current members of the boards of trustees (the Trustees, or the Applicant) of the Pension Fund and the Training Fund each include an equal number of employer-appointed trustees (Employer Trustees) and Union-appointed trustees (Union Trustees). Furthermore, the Applicant represents that five out of the six Trustees on the boards are common to each Fund. Finally, the Applicant represents that the Training Fund contributed to the Pension Fund on behalf of some of its employees.

    4. The Applicant represents that the Pension Fund has been receiving funding for benefits from the PBGC since July 2009 in the form of loans. As of June 30, 2014, the outstanding loan amount, including principal and interest, totals $2,178,863.80. The PBGC's involvement also includes an ongoing review of plan benefits and expenses that are paid with PBGC advances.25 On July 28, 2010, the Applicant notified the PBGC that a plan termination by mass withdrawal had occurred as of June 28, 2010, and that employers had been assessed withdrawal liability. The Applicant represents that it has since reached a global resolution of funding issues with the PBGC and has received approval from the PBGC for the proposed transactions described herein.

    25 The Applicant states that, in the context of multiemployer plans, the PBGC permits the continued administration of the plan by its board of trustees.

    5. The Pension Fund and the Training Fund have also been the subject of two investigations by the Department. In this regard, on March 26, 2009, the Pension Fund was notified that it was the subject of an investigation under Title I of ERISA by the Department's Boston Regional Office concerning investments related to the fraud perpetrated on the Pension Fund by Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. The Department found that the Trustees of the Pension Fund had breached their fiduciary obligations to the Plan and violated several provisions of ERISA. The Trustees restored approximately $34,712 to the Plan, representing certain administrative expenses, plus interest, associated with the violations. On June 10, 2011, the Department indicated that it had concluded its investigation of the Pension Fund and of the activities of its Trustees based on their corrective actions.

    6. On August 22, 2011, the Applicant was notified that the Training Fund was the subject of another investigation by the Department. In this regard, the Applicant voluntarily submitted itself to investigation by the Department's Boston Regional Office. The Department found that the Training Fund reimbursed medical service providers for asbestos related physical examinations in excess of the maximum $125 limit provided in the Plan. By letter dated May 29, 2013, the Department indicated that it had concluded its investigation of the Training Fund and of its Trustees, and concluded further that based on the corrective actions taken by the Trustees, including restoration of $8,177.68 to the Training Fund, no further action would be taken.

    The Sale

    7. The Applicant represents that the Pension Fund purchased the real property located at 6200 NYS Route 31, Cicero, New York (the Building), in 1999, from unrelated third parties at a price of $230,000. The Applicant represents further that the Building was originally constructed as a State Police barracks in 1972. The Building sits on 1.28 acres of land and is comprised of 3,575 square feet of class B office space and meeting areas, a built-in garage and a class C finished basement. Other improvements to the property include an asphalt-paved parking lot, a chain-link fence enclosed storage area, and a one-story wood frame storage shed. According to the Applicant, the Building was renovated in 1999 by the Pension Fund for use as a union hall and administrative offices. As of July 29, 2013, the appraised value of the Building was $505,000.

    8. The Applicant represents that, in connection with the Pension Fund's financial losses and termination, the PBGC has indicated a preference that the Pension Fund sell the Building, as a sale of the Building would improve the liquidity of the Pension Fund and allow it to pay benefits. The Trustees of the Pension Fund considered PBGC's recommendation and agreed that the Building should be sold.

    9. The Applicant represents that the Training Fund wishes to purchase the Building from the Pension Fund (the Sale) in order to maintain the current training facilities and avoid any disruption in training. Furthermore, the Applicant states that, if the Pension Fund were forced to sell the Building to an unrelated third party, additional costs would be incurred by the Training Fund to construct or upgrade new property to meet the training needs of the roofing industry. Moreover, the Applicant states that the Pension Fund and other entities intend to lease office space in the Building from the Training Fund following the Sale, providing a stream of income to the Training Fund.26 The Applicant represents that the proposed price for which the Training Fund will purchase the Building from the Pension Fund is equal to fair market value of the Building, as established in an appraisal conducted by a qualified independent appraiser and updated on the date of the Sale. An Independent Fiduciary, Syracuse Securities, Inc., is responsible for monitoring and approving the transaction on behalf of the Training Fund. The Independent Fiduciary recommends a down-payment of 20% of the purchase price with the remaining 80%, of an amount not to exceed $400,000, financed by a commercial mortgage.

    26 The Applicant represents that although the Pension Fund is terminated, it continues to provide administrative services, including making benefit payments. Therefore, if this exemption is granted, the Pension Fund intends to hereafter lease space in the Building from the Training Fund in compliance with the requirements of Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 76-1 (41 FR 12740, March 26, 1976, as corrected at 41 FR 16620, April 20, 1976) and PTE 77-10 (42 FR 33918, July 1, 1977).

    10. Section 406(a)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary from causing a plan to engage in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect sale or exchange, or leasing, of any property between a plan and a party in interest. Section 406(a)(1)(D) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary from causing a plan to engage in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a party in interest, of any assets of a plan. The Applicant states that, because the Pension Fund is a party in interest to the Training Fund under section 3(14)(C) of the Act, the Sale would constitute a prohibited transaction under sections 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the Act. Furthermore, section 406(b)(1) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary from dealing with the assets of a plan in his own interest or for his own account. Section 406(b)(2) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary, in his individual or in any other capacity, from acting in any transaction involving the plan on behalf of a party (or represent a party) whose interests are adverse to the interests of the plan or the interests of its participants or beneficiaries. Because certain officers of the Pension Fund are also Trustees of the Training Fund, and they may have an interest in causing the Training Fund to engage in the transaction with the Pension Fund, the Sale may also constitute a prohibited transaction under sections 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Applicant requests an administrative exemption from sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(D), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act for the Sale.

    The Appraisal

    11. The Applicant represents that, in connection with the proposed Sale, a qualified, independent appraiser conducted an appraisal of the Building (the Appraisal). In its July 19, 2013, appraisal report, Pomeroy Appraisal Associates, Inc. (Pomeroy) valued the Building at $505,000.

    12. Pomeroy represents that Donald A. Fisher, the appraiser who signed its appraisal report, has worked as an appraiser for Pomeroy since 1974. Pomeroy represents that Fisher is a New York-certified General Appraiser, a Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI), and an Accredited Rural Appraiser (ARA). Pomeroy represents that there is no relationship between Pomeroy and the Funds. Pomeroy represents and warrants that it meets the revenue test for a qualified independent appraiser for 2013, the year of the appraisal, as the fees received were less than 2% of its annual revenues for income tax year 2012.

    13. Pomeroy represents that it utilized the Sales Comparison and Income Capitalization approaches, and arrived at a final estimate of value by calculating the weighted average of the two valuation methods. In using the Sales Comparison Approach, Pomeroy represents that it evaluated six recent sales similar in location, size, age and competitive class. Pomeroy adjusted those prices to account for the disparities in rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale, market conditions, location, land area, building size, building condition and age, building utility and design, office space percentage, and other features. Based on its analysis, Pomeroy represents that it derived a value of $140 per square foot for the subject property, or $500,000.

    14. In utilizing the Income Capitalization Approach, Pomeroy represents that it evaluated the leasing information from five tenant spaces within the North Syracuse marketplace which were negotiated within the previous five years. Based on its analysis, Pomeroy represents that it derived a total value of $512,000 for the subject property.

    15. Pomeroy represents that based on the quality of the information provided by the two approaches, they assigned a weight of 60% to the Sales Comparison Approach and 40% to the Income Capitalization Approach, arriving at its valuation of the subject property at $505,000.

    The Independent Fiduciary's Report

    16. Syracuse Securities, Inc., was retained to serve as the Independent Fiduciary to the Training Fund, with Laurence Smith as the Lead Consultant, pursuant to the Independent Fiduciary Services Agreement. The Applicant represents that Syracuse Securities has acted as a commercial mortgage analyst, broker, and mortgage banker since the mid-1980s. Syracuse Securities has also acted as a residential mortgage banker since 1974. The Applicant represents that the Independent Fiduciary was initially engaged in 2010 when the parties first began considering the Sale of the Building in accordance with a prohibited transaction exemption, and when the initial application for the corresponding prohibited transaction exemption was filed. However, the Independent Fiduciary has served the Training Fund only on an “as needed” basis in connection with the Sale of the Building. The Training Fund is paying for the services of the Independent Fiduciary.

    17. Syracuse Securities represents that it previously served as an Independent Fiduciary for other ERISA plans in connection with real estate transactions. Syracuse Securities represents that it consulted with ERISA counsel in connection with this transaction regarding its fiduciary duties.

    18. The Independent Fiduciary represents that, prior to this application, it had no relationship with the Pension Fund or Training Fund. Further, the Applicant represents that the Independent Fiduciary is not related in any way to the Funds, the Union, or any employer that contributes to the Funds. Syracuse Securities represented and warranted that for each year it has been retained, from 2010 through 2014, the company earned less than 1% of its total corporate income from the Applicant and any related party.

    19. The Independent Fiduciary's Lead Consultant, Laurence Smith, represents that he is a mortgage banker with 32 years of experience specializing in commercial and residential real estate mortgages. The Independent Fiduciary represents that he has no present or contemplated future interest in, or bias with respect to, the Building.

    20. The Independent Fiduciary represents that the Training Fund is a current tenant in the Building, which serves an important purpose in the successful operation and financial well-being of the Training Fund. Given the Appraiser's valuation of the Building, the Independent Fiduciary represents that the Sale for a price of $500,000 is fair, reasonable and beneficial to the Training Fund, its participants and beneficiaries.

    21. The Independent Fiduciary represents that the Sale furthers the interest of the Training Fund and its participants and beneficiaries as the Training Fund's purpose is to “provide necessary construction equipment, qualified instructors, books, models [and] sites where instruction and practice on the equipment aforesaid can be available to persons eligible under this program . . .” Further, the Independent Fiduciary states that the space in the Building is already set up to serve the Training Fund's purposes and the Training Fund is a current tenant. The Applicant represents that if the Pension Fund is required to sell the property to a third party, the Training Fund will be forced to vacate the Building and find a new training location, possibly incurring further costs. The Independent Fiduciary represents that the Training Fund may spend more money retrofitting a new location for its specific needs than it would purchasing the Building. Also, the Building is centrally located to serve all of the Training Fund's participants. Further, by effectuating this purchase, there would be no disruption in services or training programs for staff, participants, apprentices, and contributing employers.

    22. The Independent Fiduciary assessed the financials and investment portfolio of the Training Fund and determined that, based on the investment objectives and overall purpose of the Training Fund, a 100% cash purchase would hamper the overall diversification of the Training Fund's assets and adversely impact the liquidity of the Training Fund. Therefore, the Independent Fiduciary recommends a down-payment of 20% of the purchase price with the remaining 80%, of an amount not to exceed $400,000, financed by a commercial mortgage. As of October 31, 2013, the 20% down payment constitutes approximately 8.74% of the Training Fund's assets. In contrast, if the total value of the Building were purchased in cash, it would represent approximately 44% of the Training Fund's assets. The Independent Fiduciary represents that the Training Fund has sufficient liquidity and funding through hourly employer contributions and future rental income to support the investment in the Building as recommended. The Independent Fiduciary further represents that employer contributions and rental income are anticipated to exceed the Training Fund's monthly mortgage payment.

    23. The Independent Fiduciary recommended that the new lease agreements be entered into for terms of at least three years between the current tenants and the Training Fund. The Independent Fiduciary further recommended that the leases contain language holding each tenant responsible for its percentage share of the Building's common expenses, in addition to its respective rent. The Independent Fiduciary specified that such common expenses do not need to include any real estate taxes or capital improvement expenses. The Independent Fiduciary recommended, in accordance with the Pomeroy Appraisal Report, that the rents be no less than $12.00 per square foot for above-ground space and $8.00 per square foot for below-ground space. Further, the Independent Fiduciary recommended that the Pension Fund be required to place with the Training Fund a security deposit of $5,200, equivalent to four months' rent.

    Statutory Findings

    24. The Applicant represents that the requested exemption with respect to the Sale is administratively feasible because the Sale is a one-time transaction between the Pension Fund and the Training Fund, which will not require continuous or future monitoring by the Department.

    The Applicant represents that the Sale is in the interest of the Pension Fund, the Training Fund, and their participants and beneficiaries because it will permit the Funds to maintain their offices and the training facilities at the present location with no disruption in services or training. The Applicant represents that, if the Pension Fund is forced to sell the property to a third party, the Training Fund will be forced to vacate the Building and find a new training location, putting the Union in a perilous state.

    The Independent Fiduciary represents that the purchase of the Building is a prudent investment for the Training Fund as the Building should generate reasonable income in the form of rent. Further, amounts that the Training Fund previously expended for rent will now be invested in an asset that the Training Fund owns and utilizes. Also, the purchase furthers the purpose of the Training Fund to provide necessary construction equipment, instructors, books, models and sites for instruction and practice on the equipment, as the existing facility has been upgraded to meet the Training Fund's specific needs.

    Finally, the Sale will provide the Pension Fund with an infusion of cash without the payment of any real estate commissions, allowing it to pay benefits to participants as requested by the PBGC.

    The Applicant represents that the Sale is protective of the rights of the Training Fund as an Independent Fiduciary, Syracuse Securities, Inc., has approved the Sale and will represent the interests of the Training Fund throughout the purchase of the Building, including additional length of time if warranted. Also, a Qualified Independent Appraiser appraised the Building for purposes of determining the purchase price. The Applicant represents that objective procedural safeguards, including service provider agreements, discussion of the merits of the Sale at trustees' meetings, and retention of separate counsel for the Sale, have also been instituted.

    Summary

    25. In summary, the Applicant represents that the proposed exemption satisfies the statutory criteria for an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act for the reasons stated above and for the following reasons, among others:

    (a) At the time of the Sale, the Pension Fund receives a one-time payment of cash equal to the fair market value of the Building as established by a qualified independent appraiser in an Appraisal updated on the date of the Sale;

    (b) The Training Fund may finance up to 80% of the purchase cost of the Building with an independent, third-party bank;

    (c) The Training Fund pays no fees, commissions or other expenses associated with the Sale; and

    (d) The Independent Fiduciary, acting on behalf of the Fund, represents the Training Fund's interests for all purposes with respect to the Sale, and: (1) Determines, among other things, that it is in the best interest of the Training Fund to proceed with the Sale; (2) reviews and approves the methodology used in the Appraisal; and (3) ensures that such methodology is properly applied by the Appraiser in determining the fair market value of the Building on the date of the Sale.

    Notice to Interested Persons

    Notice of the proposed exemption will be given to all Union members within 15 days of the publication of the notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register, by first class U.S. mail to the last known address of all such individuals, and by posting in the Union hall in a prominent location. Such notice will contain a copy of the notice of proposed exemption, as published in the Federal Register, and a supplemental statement, as required pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(a)(2). The supplemental statement will inform interested persons of their right to comment on and to request a hearing with respect to the pending exemption. Written comments and hearing requests are due within 45 days of the publication of the notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register. All comments will be made available to the public.

    Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erica R. Knox of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8644. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    General Information

    The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:

    (1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;

    (2) Before an exemption may be granted under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interests of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;

    (3) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and

    (4) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in each application are true and complete, and that each application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of April, 2015. Lyssa E. Hall, Director, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08565 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2015-06; Application No. D-11827] Notice of Exemption Involving BNP Paribas, S.A. (BNP or the Applicant); Located in Paris, France AGENCY:

    Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Exemption.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains a notice of exemption issued by the Department of Labor (the Department) from certain prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code). The exemption affects the ability of certain entities with specified relationships to BNP to continue to rely upon the relief provided by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 84-14.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This exemption is effective as of the earliest date a judgment of conviction against BNP is entered in either: (1) Case Number 14-cr-00460 (LGS) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York; or (2) Case Number 2014 NY 051231 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Ness, telephone (202) 693-8561, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor (these are not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 26, 2014, the Department of Labor (the Department) published a notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register at 79 FR 70661, for certain entities with specified relationships to BNP to continue rely upon the relief provided by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (PTE) 84-14,1 notwithstanding judgments of conviction against BNP in: (1) Case Number 14-cr-00460 (LGS) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, by conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, codified at Title 50, United States Code, Section 1701 et seq., and regulations issued thereunder, and the Trading with the Enemy Act, codified at Title 50, United States Code Appendix, Section 1 et seq., and regulations issued thereunder; and (2) Case Number 2014 NY 051231 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York for falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law § 175.10, and conspiracy in the fifth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 105.05(1).

    1 49 FR 9494 (March 13, 1984), as corrected at 50 FR 41430 (October 10, 1985), as amended at 70 FR 49305 (August 23, 2005), and as amended at 75 FR 38837 (July 6, 2010).

    The proposed exemption contains conditions described in the QPAM class exemption, as well as a set of additional conditions, that must be satisfied in order for asset managers with specified relationships to BNP to engage in the transactions described in the QPAM class exemption. The individual exemption was requested by BNP pursuant to section 408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue administrative exemptions under section 4975(c)(2) of the Code to the Secretary of Labor.

    Written Comments

    The Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments and/or requests for a public hearing with respect to the notice of proposed exemption published in the Federal Register. During the comment period, the Department received two written comments on the proposed exemption, one from Public Citizen (a public interest group) in opposition of the exemption, and the other from BNP.

    A discussion of Public Citizen's comment and BNP's comment follows below. Any capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined have the meanings ascribed to them in the Summary of Facts and Representations in the notice of proposed exemption.

    Public Citizen's Comments Relating to Criminal Activity of BNP

    Public Citizen stated that legal tools, such as denial of the exemption, should be used to prevent criminal behavior. Public Citizen further asserted that convicted entities should not be permitted to engage in “[c]omplex or higher risk investments,” and that the lack of a criminal record should be a prerequisite to manage investments. Public Citizen also questioned certain BNP representations that plans would incur substantial costs as a result of BNP Affiliated QPAMs and BNP Related QPAMs (collectively, the BNP QPAMs) losing their ability to rely upon the relief in PTE 84-14 due to the Convictions. Public Citizen stated further that while punishment that penalizes employees who did no wrong should be avoided, “collateral damage” cannot always justify an exemption. Instead, it argues that an appropriate inquiry should be whether plan clients of the affected BNP QPAMs receive better investment returns from investment activities requiring reliance on PTE 84-14 than they would otherwise receive.

    Department's Response

    The Department notes that PTE 84-14 was granted based on an effort to improve the administration of the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA. Those rules prohibit various transactions between plans and certain parties in interest. The prohibited transaction rules sweep very broadly and, in some circumstances, could work to prevent beneficial transactions. For example, large employers and funds necessarily engage in a wide range of transactions with parties in interest that pose little danger to plan participants. For example, all of the different service providers to plans are technically parties in interest. Accordingly, Congress gave the Department authority to issue exemptions from the broad reach of the prohibited transaction rules where it has determined that such exemptions are in the interest of, and protective of, affected plans and the participants and beneficiaries thereof, as well as administratively feasible.

    Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-14 (the QPAM Exemption) is one such exemption. A QPAM is a “Qualified Professional Asset Manager.” By definition, QPAMs are large regulated banks, savings and loan associations, insurance companies or federally registered investment advisors that meet certain standards of size and independence. PTE 84-14 permits these independent plan asset managers to engage in a variety of beneficial arm's length transactions with parties in interest that would otherwise be prohibited. Under Part I of the class exemption, QPAMs cannot: Engage in self-dealing transactions; act in their own interest or the interest of their affiliates; and/or engage in transactions with parties that are in a position to affect their independent judgment, such as persons with ownership interests in the QPAM.

    Primarily, PTE 84-14 simply permits QPAMs to engage in various arm's length transactions with parties in interest and obviates the need to undertake time consuming compliance checks for parties in interest, forego investment opportunities, or seek an individual exemption from the Department for each transaction. The conditions in the exemption were designed to ensure that the transactions covered therein are protective of and beneficial to affected plans.

    The scope of the anti-criminal provision set forth in section I(g)of PTE 84-14 is very broad and covers entities with various relationships to a convicted entity. Some of those entities may not have had the ability to influence the policies, procedures or practices of the convicted entity; and they may not have been in a position to be influenced by the policies, procedures or practices of the convicted entity. Nevertheless, a consequence of the conviction of an entity with a business relationship to one or more QPAMs is that the QPAMs lose the ability to rely on the exemption for 10 years following the date of the conviction, unless granted individual exemptions.

    In reviewing applications for such exemptions, the Department will on a case-by-case basis consider the circumstances relating to the loss of QPAM status, and the specific conditions necessary to prevent potential abuse. Of particular importance is the degree to which the investment and compliance operations of the QPAM can be sufficiently isolated from the influence of “bad actors”. Based on such considerations, the Department has previously granted conditional individual exemptions that permit asset managers to continue to engage in the transactions described in PTE 84-14, notwithstanding that the asset managers were affiliated with, or otherwise related to, a convicted entity.

    The Department has carefully considered Public Citizen's argument that BNP's exemption application should be rejected in order to deter criminal activity, the Department has concluded, however, that the interests of plan participants would be better protected by imposition of the stringent conditions set forth herein. It is unclear that the denial of the exemption application would have any meaningful effect on BNP's behavior. Moreover, the final exemption granted herein should promote adherence to strict fiduciary standards, insulate plans from any bad actors, and provide much or all of the deterrent effect that would have been achieved through outright denial.

    In this regard, it should be emphasized that BNP itself cannot act as a QPAM under the terms of the exemption, and that the BNP QPAMs were not involved in the criminal activities that give rise to the Convictions. Nor is the Department aware of any evidence that the investment management activities of the BNP QPAMs were affected, in any way, by BNP's criminal activities. Moreover, denial of the requested exemption would deprive BNP-related asset managers from the ability to act as QPAMs. It would not bar them from continuing to manage plan assets, and such managers could continue to engage in a wide range of transactions on behalf of those plans.

    The Department also notes Public Citizen's comments regarding the complexity of the transactions engaged in by BNP QPAMs, the relative investment returns of funds managed by those QPAMs, and the cost to plans for switching to a new QPAM. Undoubtedly, these are important issues that should be considered by the independent plan fiduciaries who hire or retain BNP asset managers. The Department does not believe these considerations are relevant, however, to its determination as to whether the BNP QPAMs may continue to engage in the transactions described in PTE 84-14 in light of the Convictions.

    Public Citizen's Comments Regarding BNP Employees

    Public Citizen states that none of the individuals involved in the conduct underlying the Convictions should be allowed to manage ERISA and IRA assets. Public Citizen additionally questions whether it can be verified that employees of the BNP QPAMs were not involved in the crimes, and asserts that BNP should identify the individuals that participated in the criminal conduct so that the Department can confirm that they are not involved in oversight of the BNP QPAMs.

    The Department's Response

    The Department believes that Public Citizen's concern is substantially addressed in the exemption as originally proposed, through Subsection I(f), which requires that each “BNP Affiliated QPAM,” as defined in the exemption, ensure that none of its employees or agents, if any, that were involved in the criminal conduct that underlies the Convictions will engage in transactions on behalf of any investment fund subject to ERISA and managed by such BNP Affiliated QPAM.

    Unlike the conditions which are subject to correction in conjunction with the audit requirement, Subsection I(f) is not correctable through the audit process. Rather, a failure to abide by this condition will immediately and irrevocably disqualify a BNP Affiliated QPAM from the relief in this exemption for the entire period of the exemption. As with every condition of the exemption, the BNP Affiliated QPAMs must be able, at all times, to adequately demonstrate that this requirement has been met.

    Public Citizen's Comment Regarding the Auditor

    Public Citizen also questions the independence of the auditor required under the proposed exemption, and makes a request that the auditor be chosen by the Department (or subject to the Department's approval), that the auditor's reports be made public, including a description of instances wherein BNP Affiliated QPAMs were required to take remedial action, and that the auditor's reports be provided to the Department so that it may review the auditor's findings.

    The Department's Response

    The Department notes that a robust audit conducted by a sophisticated independent auditor, for the entire period covered by this exemption, is an important condition for relief under this exemption. The Department has taken care to ensure the independence and rigor of the audit; it has tightened the stringency of the audit conditions from the original proposal; and it has enhanced its ability to exercise oversight, if necessary. For example, new Subsection I(h)(2) provides that the BNP Affiliated QPAMs and, if applicable, BNP, will provide the auditor “unconditional access to its business, including, but not limited to: Its computer systems, business records, transactional data, workplace locations, training materials, and personnel.” Former Subsections I(h)(2) through I(h)(8) have been renumbered as I(h)(3) through I(h)(9). In former Subsection I(h)(4), now Subsection I(h)(5), the Department substituted the word “procedures” for “steps” in the first sentence; the Department also added the phrase “and compliance with” to the second sentence to reinforce the requirement that the auditor test for operational compliance with the Policies and Training requirements. The Department also added a new Subsection I(h)(10), which requires the BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the auditor to submit to the Department “(A) any engagement agreement(s) entered into pursuant to the engagement of the auditor under this exemption, and (B) any engagement agreement entered into with any other entities retained in connection with such QPAM's compliance with the Training or Policies conditions of this exemption, no later than nine months after the date of the earlier of the Convictions (and one month after the execution of any agreement thereafter).” Additionally, the Department removed from former Subsection I(h)(5), now Subsection I(h)(6), the following two sentences: “Upon request, the auditor shall provide OED with all of the relevant workpapers reflecting any instances of noncompliance. The workpapers shall include an explanation of any corrective or remedial actions taken by the respective BNP Affiliated QPAM.” A similar requirement that will be more broadly applicable to all of Section I(h) was moved to new Subsection I(h)(11) and requires the auditor to provide to OED, upon request, “all of the workpapers created and utilized in the course of the audit, including, but not limited to: The audit plan, audit testing, identification of any instances of noncompliance by the relevant BNP Affiliated QPAM, and an explanation of any corrective or remedial actions taken by the applicable BNP Affiliated QPAM.”

    The Department does not endorse the selection of any particular auditor. The Department instead sets a threshold for determining independence on behalf of the auditor and requires expertise in the appropriate field. With this in mind, Subsection I(h)(1) expressly requires retention of an “independent auditor, who has been prudently selected and who has appropriate technical training and proficiency with ERISA.” In the event that the Applicant contemplates replacing the current auditor, the exemption now requires BNP to notify the Department as to the identity of the replacement auditor at least 30 days prior to any such replacement, and BNP must be prepared to demonstrate to the Department's satisfaction that such replaced auditor is independent of BNP, experienced in the matters that are the subject of the exemption, and capable of making the determinations required of this exemption.

    Importantly, the exemption language in Subsection I(h)(9), formerly Subsection I(h)(8), and new Subsection I(h)(11) expressly requires that the auditor's reports (including instances of remedial action taken) be submitted to the Department. Furthermore, the exemption contains a condition in Subsection I(g)(1)(v) requiring that the “BNP Affiliated QPAM does not make any material misrepresentations or omit material information in its communications with such regulators with respect to ERISA-covered plans . . .” which is an obligation specifically applicable to the audit reports submitted by the BNP Affiliated QPAMs and which is, therefore, a material condition for relief under this exemption. After the Department receives each audit report, the reports will become a part of the administrative record and available to the public through the Department's Public Disclosure Room.

    Public Citizen's Hearing Request

    Finally, Public Citizen requests that the Department hold a public hearing in connection with the proposed exemption.

    The Department's Response

    Pursuant to the Department's regulations at 29 CFR part 2570.46, the Department will grant a hearing request where it is necessary to fully explore material factual issues raised by the person who requested the hearing.

    The Department recognizes that Public Citizen's comment letter also contains numerous legal and policy objections that are similar to the legal and policy objections it raised during a public hearing the Department held on January 15, 2015. That public hearing related to a request by Credit Suisse AG for an individual exemption by Credit Suisse AG, to permit Credit Suisse AG-related asset managers to continue to engage in the types of transactions described in the PTE 84-14, notwithstanding certain convictions that were impending against Credit Suisse AG.

    Given that the legal and policy issues raised by Public Citizen in this case are not novel and were also raised and fully developed by them at a public hearing, and do not raise significant relevant factual issues concerning BNP, the Department has concluded that there is no need to hold an additional hearing in this case. Accordingly, the Department has determined not to hold a hearing.

    BNP's Comment

    The Applicant's comment requests several confirmations regarding the conditions of the proposed exemption, and provides clarifications and additional information in support of the Summary of Facts and Representations in the proposed exemption. The Applicant's requests and clarifications, and the Department's responses thereto, are as follows:

    1. Section I(e)

    The Applicant's comment requests confirmation with regard to Section I(e) of the proposed exemption, which provides that a BNP Affiliated QPAM will not use its authority or influence to direct an investment fund managed by the QPAM to enter into any transaction with BNP or engage BNP to provide additional services for a fee paid by the investment fund. The Applicant requests that the Department confirm that this condition would not disallow a BNP Affiliated QPAM from trading in markets where BNP provides local subcustody services to global custodians of ERISA plans that are unaffiliated with BNP. According to the Applicant, to the extent that a BNP Affiliated QPAM enters into a transaction in a market where BNP is the local subcustodian, BNP might receive additional compensation from such global custodian.

    The Department declines to provide the confirmation requested above. In this regard, the Department is concerned about the potential for self-dealing inasmuch as, depending on the facts and circumstances, a BNP Affiliated QPAM might effectively use its “authority or influence to direct” an investment fund to “enter into” a “transaction with” BNP or “provide additional services, for a fee borne by” the investment fund. The Department notes however, that it is not expressing a view on whether any particular transaction would constitute a separate prohibited transaction under ERISA or the Code.

    2. Section I(g)(2)

    The Applicant's comment requests confirmation with regard to Section I(g)(2) of the proposed exemption, which requires that each BNP Affiliated QPAM immediately develop and implement a program of training (the Training) conducted at least annually for relevant asset management, legal, compliance, and internal audit personnel and that “the Training shall be set forth in the Policies.” The Applicant requests that the Department confirm that this condition requires the Policies to expressly provide for the Training, but that the actual Training materials may be separate from the Policies and need not be duplicated verbatim within the Policies.

    The Department notes that participation in the Training is a crucial component of adhering to the Policies and of the exemptive relief. Therefore, the Department confirms that the actual Training materials need not be duplicated within the Policies so long as the Policies provide for and incorporate the Training requirement and provide specific details regarding the Training materials, including the identification of the particular training program and the primary training materials, the effective date(s) of any training manuals, and a brief outline of any information on the topics covered within the materials.

    3. Section I(h)(1)

    The Applicant's comment requests confirmation with regard to Section I(h)(1) of the proposed exemption. Section I(h)(1) requires that the BNP Affiliated QPAMs submit to an annual audit conducted by an independent auditor. Pursuant to this condition, the first audit must cover the first six months following the earlier of the convictions, with each subsequent audit covering a corresponding twelve-month period. The Applicant requests confirmation that the final audit need only cover the last six months of the disqualifying period under Section I(g) of PTE 84-14.

    The Department clarifies that the final audit need only cover the remaining period under which this individual exemption is required. The Department adds that because there are two simultaneous cases that will lead to two separate Convictions (federal and state) for the same underlying conduct, the final period may be slightly longer than six months. That is, this individual exemption is effective upon the earlier of the two Convictions, but will remain in effect until ten years after the later of the two Convictions.

    4. Section I(l)

    The Applicant's comment requests confirmation with regard to Section I(l) of the proposed exemption, which requires BNP to provide to interested persons a notice of the proposed exemption along with a separate summary describing the facts that led to the Convictions, and a prominently displayed statement that the Convictions result in a failure to meet a condition in PTE 84-14. The Applicant requests confirmation that the notice to interested persons required in accordance with Section (I)(l) was required to be sent only to ERISA-covered plans and IRAs that were clients as of the date the proposal was published in the Federal Register, and with respect to which PTE 84-14 may be used. Furthermore, the Applicant notes that Part II of the Form ADV is provided to each new separately managed account client and to the sponsor of each pooled fund prior to the inception of any asset management mandate. In the case of any banks or other entities that are not Registered Investment Advisors (and therefore do not maintain a Form ADV), the following disclosure will be included in the asset management or other account agreement: “In managing the account, [the Manager] may rely on the exemptive relief provided by U.S. Department of Labor Individual Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2015-[XX]. The exemption enables [Manager] to act as a “qualified professional asset manager” under PTE 84-14, notwithstanding the criminal conviction of an affiliate, BNP Paribas SA, for its role in certain U.S. dollar transactions involving parties subject to U.S. sanctions. [The Manager] was not involved in that conduct or that conviction. A copy of the proposed and final exemption may be found on the Department's Web site, [http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/ind_exemptionsmain.html].”

    The Department confirms that the Applicant properly interpreted the requirements related to notifying interested persons of the proposed exemption, subject to the understanding that prospectively, notice of BNP's conviction must appear in both Part I and Part II of the Form ADVs of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs that are Registered Investment Advisers (RIAs) and remain there for ten years, and, in the case of BNP Affiliated QPAMs that are not RIAs, the additional disclosure noted above must be included in the asset management or other account agreement.

    5. The BNP Affiliated QPAMs

    The Applicant's comment makes certain clarifications to Paragraph 6 of the Summary of Facts and Representations, which describes BNP's relationship with the BNP Affiliated QPAMs. In this regard, Paragraph 6 provides that, “the BNP Affiliated QPAMs include Fisher Francis Trees and Watt, Inc., BNP Paribas Investment Partners Trust Company, BNP Paribas Asset Management, Inc., BancWest Investment Services, and Bishop Street Capital Management which are subsidiaries of Bank of the West and First Hawaiian Bank, respectively, which themselves provide fiduciary services to ERISA-covered plans and IRAs. The Applicant represents that each of the above-named entities are third tier affiliates of BNP, and BNP owns all or substantially all interests, directly or indirectly, in such entities.”

    The Applicant's comment provides that the BNP subsidiaries described in Paragraph 6 either currently rely on PTE 84-14 or may wish to do so in the future on behalf of ERISA-covered plans or IRAs. The Applicant states further that the list of BNP Affiliated QPAMs may change at any time depending on an entity's ERISA-covered plan or IRA client base or a change in strategy. The Applicant also notes that, while the BNP Affiliated QPAMs identified as third-tier subsidiaries in the application are indeed third-tier subsidiaries, other entities identified as BNP Affiliated QPAMs may be on other tiers, such as First Hawaiian Bank and Bank of the West, which are second-tier subsidiaries. Nevertheless, according to the Applicant, BNP owns all or substantially all interests, directly or indirectly, in the entities identified as BNP Affiliated QPAMs. The Department takes note of the Applicant's clarifications to Paragraph 6 of the Summary of Facts and Representations.

    After giving full consideration to the entire record, including the written comments, subject to the Department's responses thereto, the Department has decided to grant the exemption. The complete application file, with copies of the comments, is available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the proposed exemption published in the Federal Register on November 26, 2014, at 79 FR 70661.

    General Information

    The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:

    (1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;

    (2) In accordance with section 408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department makes the following determinations: The exemption is administratively feasible, the exemption is in the interests of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and the exemption is protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;

    (3) The exemption is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of ERISA, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and

    (4) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describe all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.

    Accordingly, the following exemption is granted under the authority of section 408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011):

    Exemption Section I: Covered Transactions

    The BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the BNP Related QPAMs shall not be precluded from relying on the relief provided by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (PTE) 84-14 2 notwithstanding the Convictions (as defined in Section II(c)),3 provided the following conditions are satisfied:

    2 49 FR 9494 (March 13, 1984), as corrected at 50 FR 41430 (October 10, 1985), as amended at 70 FR 49305 (August 23, 2005), and as amended at 75 FR 38837 (July 6, 2010).

    3 Section I(g) generally provides that “[n]either the QPAM nor any affiliate thereof . . . nor any owner . . . of a 5 percent or more interest in the QPAM is a person who within the 10 years immediately preceding the transaction has been either convicted or released from imprisonment, whichever is later, as a result of” certain felonies including: (1) Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, by conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, codified at Title 50, United States Code, Section 1701 et seq., and regulations issued thereunder, and the Trading with the Enemy Act, codified at Title 50, United States Code Appendix, Section 1 et seq., and regulations issued thereunder; and (2) Falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law § 175.10, and conspiracy in the fifth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 105.05(1).

    (a) Any failure of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs or the BNP Related QPAMs to satisfy Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 arose solely from the Convictions;

    (b) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the BNP Related QPAMs (including officers, directors, agents other than BNP, and employees of such QPAMs) did not participate in the criminal conduct of BNP that is the subject of the Convictions;

    (c) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the BNP Related QPAMs did not directly receive compensation in connection with the criminal conduct of BNP that is the subject of the Convictions;

    (d) The criminal conduct of BNP that is the subject of the Convictions did not directly or indirectly involve the assets of any plan subject to Part 4 of Title I of ERISA (an ERISA-covered plan) or section 4975 of the Code (an IRA);

    (e) A BNP Affiliated QPAM will not use its authority or influence to direct an “investment fund” (as defined in Section VI(b) of PTE 84-14) that is subject to ERISA and managed by such BNP Affiliated QPAM to enter into any transaction with BNP or engage BNP to provide additional services to such investment fund, for a direct or indirect fee borne by such investment fund regardless of whether such transactions or services may otherwise be within the scope of relief provided by an administrative or statutory exemption;

    (f) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM will ensure that none of its employees or agents, if any, that were involved in the criminal conduct that underlies the Convictions will engage in transactions on behalf of any “investment fund” (as defined in Section VI(b) of PTE 84-14) subject to ERISA and managed by such BNP Affiliated QPAM;

    (g)(1) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM immediately develops, implements, maintains, and follows written policies (the Policies) requiring and reasonably designed to ensure that: (i) The asset management decisions of the BNP Affiliated QPAM are conducted independently of BNP's management and business activities; (ii) the BNP Affiliated QPAM fully complies with ERISA's fiduciary duties and ERISA and the Code's prohibited transaction provisions and does not knowingly participate in any violations of these duties and provisions with respect to ERISA-covered plans and IRAs; (iii) the BNP Affiliated QPAM does not knowingly participate in any other person's violation of ERISA or the Code with respect to ERISA-covered plans and IRAs; (iv) any filings or statements made by the BNP Affiliated QPAM to regulators, including but not limited to, the Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, on behalf of ERISA-covered plans or IRAs are materially accurate and complete, to the best of such QPAM's knowledge at that time; (v) the BNP Affiliated QPAM does not make material misrepresentations or omit material information in its communications with such regulators with respect to ERISA-covered plans or IRAs, or make material misrepresentations or omit material information in its communications with ERISA-covered plan and IRA clients; (vi) the BNP Affiliated QPAM complies with the terms of this exemption; and (vii) any violations of or failure to comply with items (ii) through (vi) are corrected promptly upon discovery and any such violations or compliance failures not promptly corrected are reported, upon discovering the failure to promptly correct, in writing to appropriate corporate officers, the head of Compliance and the General Counsel of the relevant BNP Affiliated QPAM, the independent auditor responsible for reviewing compliance with the Policies, and a fiduciary of any affected ERISA-covered plan or IRA where such fiduciary is independent of BNP; however, with respect to any ERISA-covered plan or IRA sponsored by an “affiliate” (as defined in Section VI(d) of PTE 84-14) of BNP or beneficially owned by an employee of BNP or its affiliates, such fiduciary does not need to be independent of BNP. BNP Affiliated QPAMs will not be treated as having failed to develop, implement, maintain, or follow the Policies, provided that they correct any instances of noncompliance promptly when discovered or when they reasonably should have known of the noncompliance (whichever is earlier), and provided that they adhere to the reporting requirements set forth in this item (vii);

    (2) Each Affiliated QPAM immediately develops and implements a program of training (the Training), conducted at least annually for relevant BNP Affiliated QPAM asset management, legal, compliance, and internal audit personnel; the Training shall be set forth in the Policies and, at a minimum, cover the Policies, ERISA and Code compliance (including applicable fiduciary duties and the prohibited transaction provisions) and ethical conduct, the consequences for not complying with the conditions of this exemption (including the loss of the exemptive relief provided herein), and prompt reporting of wrongdoing;

    (h)(1) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM submits to an audit conducted annually by an independent auditor, who has been prudently selected and who has appropriate technical training and proficiency with ERISA to evaluate the adequacy of, and compliance with, the Policies and Training described herein; the audit requirement must be incorporated in the Policies and the first of the audits must be completed no later than twelve (12) months after the earlier of the Convictions and must cover the first six-month period that begins on the date of the earlier of the Convictions; all subsequent audits must cover the following corresponding twelve-month periods and be completed no later than six (6) months after the period to which the audit applies;

    (2) To the extent necessary for the auditor, in its sole opinion, to complete its audit and comply with the conditions for relief described herein, each BNP Affiliated QPAM and, if applicable, BNP, will grant the auditor unconditional access to its business, including, but not limited to: Its computer systems, business records, transactional data, workplace locations, training materials, and personnel;

    (3) The auditor's engagement shall specifically require the auditor to determine whether each BNP Affiliated QPAM has developed, implemented, maintained, and followed Policies in accordance with the conditions of this exemption and developed and implemented the Training, as required herein;

    (4) The auditor's engagement shall specifically require the auditor to test each BNP Affiliated QPAM's operational compliance with the Policies and Training;

    (5) For each audit, the auditor shall issue a written report (the Audit Report) to BNP and the BNP Affiliated QPAM to which the audit applies that describes the procedures performed by the auditor during the course of its examination. The Audit Report shall include the auditor's specific determinations regarding the adequacy of, and compliance with, the Policies and Training; the auditor's recommendations (if any) with respect to strengthening such Policies and Training; and any instances of the respective BNP Affiliated QPAM's noncompliance with the written Policies and Training described in paragraph (g) above. Any determinations made by the auditor regarding the adequacy of the Policies and Training and the auditor's recommendations (if any) with respect to strengthening the Policies and Training of the respective BNP Affiliated QPAM shall be promptly addressed by such BNP Affiliated QPAM, and any actions taken by such BNP Affiliated QPAM to address such recommendations shall be included in an addendum to the Audit Report. Any determinations by the auditor that the respective BNP Affiliated QPAM has implemented, maintained, and followed sufficient Policies and Training shall not be based solely or in substantial part on an absence of evidence indicating noncompliance;

    (6) The auditor shall notify the respective BNP Affiliated QPAM of any instances of noncompliance identified by the auditor within five (5) business days after such noncompliance is identified by the auditor, regardless of whether the audit has been completed as of that date;

    (7) With respect to each Audit Report, an executive officer of the BNP Affiliated QPAM to which the Audit Report applies certifies in writing, under penalty of perjury, that the officer has reviewed the Audit Report and this exemption; addressed, corrected, or remediated any inadequacies identified in the Audit Report; and determined that the Policies and Training in effect at the time of signing are adequate to ensure compliance with the conditions of this exemption and with the applicable provisions of ERISA and the Code;

    (8) An executive officer of BNP reviews the Audit Report for each BNP Affiliated QPAM and certifies in writing, under penalty of perjury, that such officer has reviewed each Audit Report;

    (9) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM provides its certified Audit Report to the Department's Office of Exemption Determinations (OED), Suite 400, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, no later than 30 days following its completion, and each BNP Affiliated QPAM makes its Audit Report unconditionally available for examination by any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department, other relevant regulators, and any fiduciary of an ERISA-covered plan or IRA, the assets of which are managed by such BNP Affiliated QPAM;

    (10) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM and the auditor will submit to OED (A) any engagement agreement(s) entered into pursuant to the engagement of the auditor under this exemption, and (B) any engagement agreement entered into with any other entities retained in connection with such QPAM's compliance with the Training or Policies conditions of this exemption, no later than nine months after the date of the earlier of the Convictions (and one month after the execution of any agreement thereafter); and

    (11) The auditor shall provide OED, upon request, all of the workpapers created and utilized in the course of the audit, including, but not limited to: The audit plan, audit testing, identification of any instances of noncompliance by the relevant BNP Affiliated QPAM, and an explanation of any corrective or remedial actions taken by the applicable BNP Affiliated QPAM;

    (12) BNP must notify the Department at least 30 days prior to any substitution of an auditor, except that no such replacement will meet the requirements of this paragraph unless and until BNP demonstrates to the Department's satisfaction that such new auditor is independent of BNP, experienced in the matters that are the subject of the exemption, and capable of making the determinations required of this exemption;

    (i) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs comply with each condition of PTE 84-14, as amended, with the only exceptions being the violations of Section I(g) that are attributable to the Convictions;

    (j) Effective from the date of publication of this granted exemption in the Federal Register, with respect to each ERISA-covered plan or IRA for which a BNP Affiliated QPAM provides asset management or other discretionary fiduciary services, each BNP Affiliated QPAM agrees: (1) To comply with ERISA and the Code, as applicable to the particular ERISA-covered plan or IRA, and refrain from engaging in prohibited transactions; (2) not to waive, limit, or qualify the liability of the BNP Affiliated QPAM for violating ERISA or the Code or engaging in prohibited transactions; (3) not to require the ERISA-covered plan or IRA (or sponsor of such ERISA-covered plan or beneficial owner of such IRA) to indemnify the BNP Affiliated QPAM for violating ERISA or engaging in prohibited transactions, except for violations or prohibited transactions caused by an error, misrepresentation, or misconduct of a plan fiduciary or other party hired by the plan fiduciary who is independent of BNP; (4) not to restrict the ability of such ERISA-covered plan or IRA to terminate or withdraw from its arrangement with the BNP Affiliated QPAM; and (5) not to impose any fees, penalties, or charges for such termination or withdrawal with the exception of reasonable fees, appropriately disclosed in advance, that are specifically designed to prevent generally recognized abusive investment practices or specifically designed to ensure equitable treatment of all investors in a pooled fund in the event such withdrawal or termination may have adverse consequences for all other investors, provided that such fees are applied consistently and in like manner to all such investors. Within six (6) months of the date of publication of this granted exemption in the Federal Register, each BNP Affiliated QPAM will provide a notice to such effect to each ERISA-covered plan or IRA for which a BNP Affiliated QPAM provides asset management or other discretionary fiduciary services;

    (k) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM will maintain records necessary to demonstrate that the conditions of this exemption have been met for six (6) years following the date of any transaction for which such BNP Affiliated QPAM relies upon the relief in the exemption;

    (l) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs provided a notice of the proposed exemption along with a separate summary describing the facts that led to the Convictions, which has been submitted to the Department, and a prominently displayed statement that the Convictions result in a failure to meet a condition in PTE 84-14 to: (1) Each sponsor of an ERISA-covered plan and each beneficial owner of an IRA invested in an investment fund managed by a BNP Affiliated QPAM, or the sponsor of an investment fund in any case where a BNP Affiliated QPAM acts only as a sub-advisor to the investment fund; (2) each entity that may be a BNP Related QPAM; and (3) with respect to ERISA-covered plan and IRA investors in the Income Plus Fund, the identity of which is unknown, each distribution agent of the fund with a request that such distribution agent forward the documents to its clients.

    (m) A BNP Affiliated QPAM will not fail to meet the terms of this exemption solely because a BNP Related QPAM or a different BNP Affiliated QPAM fails to satisfy a condition for relief under this exemption. A BNP Related QPAM will not fail to meet the terms of this exemption solely because BNP, a BNP Affiliated QPAM, or a different BNP Related QPAM fails to satisfy a condition for relief under this exemption.

    Section II: Definitions

    (a) The term “BNP Affiliated QPAM” means a “qualified professional asset manager” (as defined in Section VI(a) 4 of PTE 84-14) that relies on the relief provided by PTE 84-14 and with respect to which BNP is a current or future “affiliate” (as defined in Section VI(d) of PTE 84-14). The term “BNP Affiliated QPAM” excludes the parent entity, BNP.

    4 In general terms, a QPAM is an independent fiduciary that is a bank, savings and loan association, insurance company, or investment adviser that meets certain equity or net worth requirements and other licensure requirements and that has acknowledged in a written management agreement that it is a fiduciary with respect to each plan that has retained the QPAM.

    (b) The term “BNP Related QPAM” means any current or future “qualified professional asset manager” (as defined in Section VI(a) of PTE 84-14) that relies on the relief provided by PTE 84-14, and with respect to which BNP owns a direct or indirect five percent or more interest, but with respect to which BNP is not an “affiliate” (as defined in Section VI(d) of PTE 84-14).

    (c) The term “Convictions” means the judgments of conviction against BNP in: (1) Case Number 14-cr-00460 (LGS) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, by conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, codified at Title 50, United States Code, Section 1701 et seq., and regulations issued thereunder, and the Trading with the Enemy Act, codified at Title 50, United States Code Appendix, Section 1 et seq., and regulations issued thereunder; and (2) Case Number 2014 NY 051231 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York for falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law § 175.10, and conspiracy in the fifth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 105.05(1).

    Effective Date: This exemption is effective as of the earliest date a judgment of conviction against BNP is entered in either: (1) Case Number 14-cr-00460 (LGS) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York; or (2) Case Number 2014 NY 051231 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of April 2015. Lyssa Hall, Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08672 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, FY 2015 AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of funds and funding opportunity announcements (FOA) for Targeted Topic Training and Capacity Building grants.

    SUMMARY

    : This notice announces availability of approximately $3.5 million for Susan Harwood Training Program grants. Two separate funding opportunity announcements are available for Targeted Topic Training grants and Capacity Building grants. Two types of grants are being announced under each funding opportunity. Funding Opportunity Number SHTG-FY-15-01 will cover the two types of Targeted Topic Training grants: Targeted Topic Training and Targeted Topic Training and Educational Materials Development grants. Funding Opportunity Number SHTG-FY-15-02 will cover the two types of Capacity Building grants: Capacity Building Developmental and Capacity Building Pilot grants.

    DATES:

    Grant applications for both Targeted Topic Training and Capacity Building grants must be received electronically by the Grants.gov system no later than 11:59 p.m., ET, on Tuesday, June 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complete Susan Harwood Training Grant Program funding opportunity announcements and all information needed to apply for these funding opportunities are available at the Grants.gov Web site, http://www.grants.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions regarding the funding opportunity announcements should be emailed to [email protected] or directed to Heather Wanderski, Program Analyst, or Jim Barnes, Director, Office of Training Programs and Administration, at 847-759-7700 (note this is not a toll-free number). Personnel will not be available to answer questions after 5:00 p.m., ET. To obtain further information on the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, visit the OSHA Web site at: http://www.osha.gov/dte/sharwood/index.html.

    Questions regarding Grants.gov should be emailed to [email protected] or directed to the Grants.gov Contact Center, at 1-800-518-4726 (toll free number). The Contact Center is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Contact Center is closed on Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is Section 21 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (29 U.S.C. 670), Public Law 113-235, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Funding Opportunity Number: SHTG-FY-15-01 (Targeted Topic grants) Funding Opportunity Number: SHTG-FY-15-02 (Capacity Building grants)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 17.502.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 6, 2015. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08509 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Meetings of Humanities Panel AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Endowment for the Humanities will hold two meetings of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during May, 2015. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at Constitution Center at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting room numbers.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisette Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW., Room, 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322; [email protected]. Hearing-impaired individuals who prefer to contact us by phone may use NEH's TDD terminal at (202) 606-8282.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:

    1. Date: May 13, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Room: 4002.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Education and Public Programs for Digital Humanities: Implementation Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

    2. Date: May 14, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Room: 4002.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Visualization for Digital Humanities: Implementation Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

    Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated July 19, 1993.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Lisette Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08607 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
    NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    9:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 28, 2015.

    PLACE:

    NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.

    STATUS:

    The one item is open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    8635 Railroad Accident Report—Chicago Transit Authority Train Collides with Bumping Post and Escalator at O'Hare Station, Chicago, Illinois, March 24, 2014.

    News Media Contact: Telephone (202) 314-6100.

    The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.

    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 by Wednesday, April 22, 2015.

    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at www.ntsb.gov.

    Schedule updates including weather-related cancellations are also available at www.ntsb.gov.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Candi Bing, (202) 314-6403 or by email at [email protected]

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Candi R. Bing, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08711 Filed 4-13-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2014-0237] Information Collection; Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Vlad Dorjets, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0143), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-7315, email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6258; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0237 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0237.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at: 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession ML15051A451.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting the NRC's Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell, Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6258; email: [email protected]

    B. Submitting Comments

    The NRC cautions you not to include set identifying or contact information in your comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at: http://www.regulations.gov and entered into ADAMS. Comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Disposal Facilities.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The NRC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71133).

    1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 62, “Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities.”

    2. OMB approval number: 3150-0143.

    3. Type of submission: Extension.

    4. The form number if applicable: N/A.

    5. How often the collection is required or requested: The collection would only be required upon application for a Commission emergency access determination when access to a non-Federal or regional Low-Level Waste Disposal facility is denied, which results in an immediate public health and safety and/or common defense and security concern.

    6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Generators of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, or the Governor of a State on behalf of any generator or generators located in his or her State who are denied access to a Non-Federal or regional low-level radioactive wastes and who wish to request emergency access for disposal of Non-Federal or regional Low-Level Waste Disposal facility pursuant to part 62 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).

    7. The estimated number of annual responses: 1.

    8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 1.

    9. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 233.

    10. Abstract: Part 62 sets out the information which must be provided to the NRC by any low-level waste generator or Governor of a State on behalf of generators seeking emergency access to an operating low-level waste disposal facility. The information is required to allow the NRC to determine if denial of disposal constitutes a serious and immediate threat to public health and safety or common defense and security. Part 62 also provides that the commission may grant an exemption from the requirements in this Part upon application of an interested person or upon its own initiative.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of April 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08568 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION [OPIC-50; OMB-3420-0001] Submission for OMB Review; Comments Request AGENCY:

    Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to publish a Notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the agency is renewing an existing form and as such has prepared an information collection for OMB review and approval and requests public review and comment on the submission. OPIC received no comments in response to the sixty (60) day notice published in Federal Register on February 2, 2015 [80 FR 5583]. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional thirty (30) days for public comments to be submitted. Comments are being solicited on the need for the information; the accuracy of OPIC's burden estimate; the quality, practical utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize reporting the burden, including automated collected techniques and uses of other forms of technology.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received within thirty (30) calendar days of publication of this Notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail all comments and requests for copies of the subject form to OPIC's Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for other information about filing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, (202) 336-8558.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    All mailed comments and requests for copies of the subject form should include form number [OPIC-50] on both the envelope and in the subject line of the letter. Electronic comments and requests for copies of the subject form may be sent to [email protected], subject line [OPIC-50].

    Summary Form Under Review

    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved information collection.

    Title: Request for Registration for Political Risk Insurance.

    Form Number: OPIC-50.

    Frequency of Use: One per investor per project.

    Type of Respondents: Business or other institution (except farms); individuals.

    Standard Industrial Classification Codes: All.

    Description of Affected Public: U.S. companies or citizens investing overseas.

    Reporting Hours: 125 hours (30 minutes per response).

    Number of Responses: 250 per year.

    Federal Cost: $6,429.

    Authority for Information Collection: Sections 231, 234(a), 239(d), and 240A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.

    Abstract (Needs and Uses): The registration is the screening document used by OPIC to review the investor's and the project's eligibility for political risk insurance and collect information for underwriting analysis.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Nichole Cadiente, Administrative Counsel, Department of Legal Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08610 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3210-01-P
    OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION [OPIC-52; OMB-3420-00015] Submission for OMB Review; Comments Request AGENCY:

    Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to publish a Notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the agency is renewing an existing form and as such has prepared an information collection for OMB review and approval and requests public review and comment on the submission. OPIC received no comments in response to the sixty (60) day notice published in Federal Register volume 80 page 5584 on February 2, 2015. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional thirty (30) days for public comments to be submitted. Comments are being solicited on the need for the information; the accuracy of OPIC's burden estimate; the quality, practical utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize reporting the burden, including automated collected techniques and uses of other forms of technology.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received within thirty (30) calendar days of publication of this Notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail all comments and requests for copies of the subject form to OPIC's Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for other information about filing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, (202) 336-8558.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    All mailed comments and requests for copies of the subject form should include form number [OPIC-52] on both the envelope and in the subject line of the letter. Electronic comments and requests for copies of the subject form may be sent to [email protected], subject line [OPIC-52].

    Summary Form Under Review

    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved information collection.

    Title: Application for Political Risk Insurance.

    Form Number: OPIC-52.

    Frequency of Use: One per investor per project.

    Type of Respondents: Business or other institution (except farms); individuals.

    Standard Industrial Classification Codes: All.

    Description of Affected Public: U.S. companies or citizens investing overseas.

    Reporting Hours: 150 hours (2 hours per response).

    Number of Responses: 75 per year.

    Federal Cost: $11,572.

    Authority for Information Collection: Sections 231, 234(a), 239(d), and 240A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.

    Abstract (Needs and Uses): The application is the principal document used by OPIC to determine the investor's and the project's eligibility for political risk insurance and collect information for underwriting analysis.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Nichole Cadiente, Administrative Counsel, Department of Legal Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08609 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3210-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74689; File No. SR-CME-2015-012] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Facilitate Acceptance of a New Credit Default Swap Index Product Series April 9, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 31, 2015, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II and III, below, which Items have been primarily prepared by CME. CME filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) 4 thereunder, so that the proposed rule change was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    CME is filing a proposed rule change that is limited to its business as a derivatives clearing organization. More specifically, the proposed rule change would make amendments to its rules regarding the listing of new series of CDS indexes available for clearing and the deletion of the series whose termination dates have passed.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements concerning the purpose and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and offers clearing services for many different futures and swaps products, including certain credit default swap index products. Currently, CME offers clearing of the Markit CDX North American Investment Grade Index Series 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. CME also offers clearing of the Markit CDX North American High Yield Index Series 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23.

    The proposed rule change would expand CME's Markit CDX North American Investment Grade (“CDX IG”) Index and Markit CDX North American High Yield (“CDX HY”) Index product offerings by incorporating the upcoming Series 24 for both sets of index products.

    In addition to the changes to expand CME's CDX offering, CME also proposes to remove from the current list of accepted CDX indices certain products whose termination dates have passed. These products are set forth in the following table:

    CDX index Series Termination date
  • (scheduled termination date)
  • CDX North American Investment Grade (CDX.NA.IG) 9 20 Dec 2014. CDX North American Investment Grade (CDX.NA.IG) 13 20 Dec 2014. CDX North American Investment Grade (CDX.NA.IG) 17 20 Dec 2014. CDX North American High Yield (CDX.NA.HY) 13 20 Dec 2014.

    Although these changes will be effective on filing, CME plans to operationalize the proposed changes as follows: CDX IG 24 will become available for clearing on March 20, 2015 and CDX HY 24 will become available for clearing on March 27, 2015; the product deletions would be effective immediately.5

    5 Staff has not altered any part of this paragraph even though the dates referenced in this paragraph have passed.

    The change that is described in this filing is limited to CME's business as a DCO clearing products under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC and do not materially impact CME's security-based swap clearing business in any way. CME notes that it has also certified the proposed rule change that is the subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC, in a separate filing, CME Submission 15-100.

    CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, including Section 17A of the Act.6 The proposed rule change would expand CME's CDX IG and CDX HY product offerings by incorporating the upcoming Series 24 for both sets of index products and would therefore provide investors with an expanded range of derivatives products for clearing and would also remove certain products whose termination dates have passed. As such, the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.7

    6 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    Furthermore, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses, which means it is limited in its effect to products that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. As such, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's activities as a DCO clearing futures that are not security futures and swaps that are not security-based swaps. CME notes that the policies of the CFTC with respect to administering the Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number of the policies underlying the Act, such as promoting market transparency for over-the-counter derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public interest.

    Because the proposed rule change is limited in its effect to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses, the proposed rule change is properly classified as effecting a change in an existing service of CME that:

    (a) Primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with respect to products that are not securities, including futures that are not security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed swaps; and forwards that are not security forwards; and

    (b) does not significantly affect any securities clearing operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect to securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing service.

    As such, the proposed rule change is therefore consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 8 and are properly filed under Section 19(b)(3)(A) 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) 10 thereunder.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule change simply facilitates the offering of two new series of credit default swap index products and deletes certain products whose termination dates have passed. Further, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses and, as such, does not affect the security-based swap clearing activities of CME in any way and therefore does not impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 11 of the Act and paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of Rule 19b-4 12 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml), or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File No. SR-CME-2015-012 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 21049-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2015-012. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours or 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.

    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2015-012 and should be submitted on or before May 6, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.13

    13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08544 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74643A; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-95] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2, Amending Rule 13—Equities and Related Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers; Correction April 9, 2015. AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in the Federal Register on April 9, 2015, concerning a Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2, Amending Rule 13—Equities and Related Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers. The document contained a typographical error.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Kuan, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, (202) 551-5624.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 9, FR Doc. 2015-8108, on page 19102, in the 13th line in the third column, correct the date “February 26, 2014” to “February 26, 2015.”

    Dated: April 9, 2015. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08629 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74694; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-28] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Modifying the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule To Adopt Fees for Certain Manual Transactions in Options Overlying IWM April 9, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on April 3, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to adopt fees for certain Manual transactions in options overlying IWM (the iShares Russell 2000 ETF). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective April 3, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this filing is to adopt fees for certain manual transactions in options overlying IWM (the iShares Russell 2000 ETF). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective April 3, 2015.

    Currently, manual trades in IWM are subject to the same fees as any other listed option that is traded manually. However, the Exchange is proposing to offer special pricing to encourage increased manual trading in the product and to offset losses of manual transactions associated with options in the iShares Russell Index (RUT), which is exclusively trading on another venue.

    Accordingly, for Manual transactions in IWM executed by NYSE Arca Market Makers, Firms and Broker Dealers (collectively, the “IWM Participants”), the Exchange proposes to charge $0.125 per contract.4 The Exchange also proposes to offer IWM Participants certain incentives for increased monthly volumes of manual transactions in IWM. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to instead offer the enhanced rates of (a) $0.075 for each contract in excess of 74,999 contracts; and (b) $0.025 for each contract in excess of 99,999 contracts, for Manual executions in IWM transacted during the month.5 As is the case today, Customers (including Professional Customers) will not be charged for manual transactions in IWM.

    4 The Exchange notes that there is currently no Lead Market Maker (“LMM”) in IWM and, thus, the proposed fee reduction does not apply to LMMs. In the event that the Exchange appoints an LMM in IWM, the Exchange would address how the proposed fee reduction would apply to the LMM in a subsequent filing.

    5Id.

    The Exchange notes that Firm Facilitations,6 Strategy Executions 7 and Qualified Contingent Crosses are excluded from the proposed fee change and would not count towards calculations of the total monthly Manual transactions in IWM. Further, after calculating fees associated with Manual transactions in IWM, at the end of the month, the Exchange will round to the nearest penny when applicable.

    6 As defined in the Fee Schedule, a Firm Facilitation is any transaction involving a Firm proprietary trading account that has a customer of that same Firm on the contra side of the transaction, or a broker dealer facilitating a Customer order, where the broker dealer and the Customer both clear through the same clearing firm and the broker dealer clears in the customer range. See Fee Schedule, Endnote 7, available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf

    7 As set forth in the Fee Schedule, Strategy Executions are transactions involving (a) reversals and conversions, (b) box spreads, (c) short stock interest spreads, (d) merger spreads, and (e) jelly rolls. See id., “LIMIT OF FEES ON OPTIONS STRATEGY EXECUTIONS”.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,8 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,9 in particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    Overall, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to IWM pricing for Manual transactions are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the reduced rates are based on the executions in IWM transacted on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fees are designed to incentivize IWM Participants to conduct Manual trades in IWM and apply equally to all IWM Participants.10 The Exchange believes the proposed fee changes may result in an increase in volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which would provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads, to the benefit of all market participants even non-IWM Participants, all of which perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and national market system.

    10 Similarly, as noted above, supra n. 4, the proposed fee is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because there is currently no LMM in IWM and, therefore, no LMM is impacted by this proposed fee change.

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,11 the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed fees associated with IWM are pro-competitive as they may attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange through the proposed reduced rates, which would benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade as well as enhancing price discovery.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 12 of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 13 thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange.

    12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 14 of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-28 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-28. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-28 and should be submitted on or before May 6, 2015.

    15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.15

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08548 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74695; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-28] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Period Applicable to the Customer Best Execution Auction per Rule 971.1 NY, Until July 17, 2015 April 9, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that on April 7, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the “Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period applicable to the Customer Best Execution Auction (“CUBE”), per Rule 971.1NY, until July 17, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period applicable to certain aspects of the Customer Best Execution—or CUBE—Auction, which is currently set to expire on April 24, 2015, until July 17, 2015.4

    4 The Exchange notes that the proposed extension would align the expiration of the pilot period with that of other competing options exchanges that offer electronic price improvement auctions similar to the CUBE. See, e.g., ISE Rule 723 Supplementary Material .03 (pilot period for price improvement mechanism extended until Friday, July 17, 2015); PHLX Rule 1080(n)(vii); (pilot period for price improvement mechanism extended until Saturday, July 18, 2015); CBOE Rule 6.74A Interpretation and Policies .03 (same); BOX IM-7150-1 (same). Because July 18, 2015 is a Saturday and the Exchange is not open, the Exchange proposes to extend the pilot until Friday, July 17, 2015.

    Background

    Rule 971.1NY sets forth an electronic crossing mechanism for single-leg orders with a price improvement auction on the Exchange, referred to as the CUBE Auction.5 The CUBE Auction, which was approved in April 2014, is designed to provide price improvement for paired orders of any size.6 Two aspects of the CUBE were approved for a one-year pilot period—Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B), which establishes the permissible range of executions for CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts; and Rule 971.1NY(b)(8), which establishes that the minimum size for a CUBE Auction is one contract (together, the “CUBE Pilot”).

    5See generally Rule 971.1NY (Electronic Cross Transactions).

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72025 (April 25, 2014), 79 FR 24779 (May 1, 2014) (NYSEMKT-2014-17) (the “CUBE Approval Order”).

    An ATP Holder may initiate a CUBE Auction by electronically submitting for execution a limit order it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (“CUBE Order”) against principal interest or against any other order it represents as agent, provided the initiating ATP Holder complies with Rule 971.1NY.7 Rule 971.1NY(b)(1) sets forth the permissible range of executions for a CUBE Order.8 Pursuant to the CUBE Pilot, a CUBE Order for fewer than 50 contracts is subject to tighter ranges of execution than larger CUBE Orders to maximize price improvement.9 Specifically, if the CUBE Order is for fewer than 50 contracts, the range of permissible execution will be equal to or better than the National Best Bid/Offer (“NBBO”), provided that such price must be at least one cent better than any displayed interest in the Exchange's Consolidated Book.10

    7 In addition, CUBE provides for the automatic execution, under certain conditions, of a crossing transaction where there is a public customer order in the same options series on each side.

    8 Subject to specified exceptions, a CUBE Order to buy (sell) may execute at prices equal to or between the initiating price as the upper (lower) bound and the National Best Bid (“NBB”) (National Best Offer (“NBO”)) as the lower (upper) bound. See Rule 971.1NY(b).

    9See Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B). Rule 971.1NY(b)(8), also subject to the pilot period, provides that the minimum size for a CUBE Auction is one contract. See Rule (b)(8).

    10See Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B).

    The CUBE Pilot was initially approved for a one-year pilot.11 Pursuant to Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY, the CUBE Pilot would, if not amended, end on April 24, 2015.12 In connection with the CUBE Pilot, the Exchange agreed to submit certain data to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the CUBE Auction.13

    11See CUBE Approval Order, supra, n. 6.

    12See also Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY (establishing one-year pilot period for Rules 971.1NY(b)(1)(B) and 971.1NY(b)(8)).

    13See CUBE Approval Order, supra, n. 6 at 79 FR 24779, at 24785-86, fn. 94-95. See also Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY.

    Proposal To Extend the Operation of the CUBE Pilot

    The Exchange implemented the CUBE Auction to provide an electronic crossing mechanism for single-leg orders with a price improvement auction. The CUBE Pilot was designed to create tighter markets and ensure that each order receives the best possible price. The Exchange believes that the CUBE Pilot attracts order flow and promotes competition and price improvement opportunities for CUBE Orders of fewer than 50 contracts. The Exchange believes that extending the pilot period is appropriate because it will allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze data regarding the CUBE Pilot that the Exchange has committed to provide.14 As such, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to extend the current operation of the Pilot. Through this filing, the Exchange seeks to amend Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY and extend the current pilot period until July 17, 2015.15 The Exchange notes that it would retain the text of Rules 971.1NY(b)(1)(B) and 971.1NY(b)(8). In further support of this proposed rule change, the Exchange would continue to submit to the Commission detailed data from, and analysis of, the CUBE Pilot.

    14Id.

    15See proposed Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 16 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 17 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes that extending the pilot period is consistent with these principles because the CUBE Pilot is reasonably designed to create tighter markets and ensure that each order receives the best possible price, which benefits investors by increasing competition thereby maximizing opportunities for price improvement. The proposed extension would allow the CUBE Pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the CUBE Pilot. Because the CUBE Pilot is applicable to all CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts, and to the requirement that the minimum size of the CUBE Auction is one contract, the proposal to extend the pilot merely acts to maintain status quo on the Exchange, which promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system. The extension of the pilot period will allow the Commission and the Exchange to continue to monitor the CUBE Pilot to ascertain whether there is meaningful competition for all size orders and whether there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the CUBE Auction.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change simply extends an established pilot program for an additional period and would allow for further analysis of the CUBE Pilot. In addition, the proposed extension would allow the CUBE Pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the CUBE Pilot. Thus, the proposal would also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 18 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.19 Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.

    18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    19 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 20 normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),21 the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.

    20 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    21 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow the pilot program to continue without interruption. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.22

    22 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 23 of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-28 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-28. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method.

    The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-28, and should be submitted on or before May 6, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.24

    24 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08549 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-74693; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-26] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Modifying the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Adopt Fees for Certain Manual Transactions in Options Overlying IWM April 9, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on April 1, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the “Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to adopt fees for certain Manual transactions in options overlying IWM (the iShares Russell 2000 ETF). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective April 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this filing is to adopt fees for certain Manual transactions in options overlying IWM (the iShares Russell 2000 ETF). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective April 1, 2015.

    Currently, Manual trades in IWM are subject to the same fees as any other listed option that is traded Manually. However, the Exchange is proposing to offer special pricing to encourage increased Manual trading in the product and to offset losses of Manual transactions associated with options in the iShares Russell Index (RUT), which is exclusively trading on another venue.

    Accordingly, for Manual transactions in IWM executed by Broker-Dealers, Firms, NYSE Amex Options Market Makers, non-NYSE Amex Options Market Makers and Professional Customers (collectively, the “IWM Participants”), the Exchange proposes to charge $0.125 per contract. The Exchange also proposes to offer IWM Participants certain incentives for increased monthly volumes of Manual transactions in IWM. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to instead offer the enhanced rates of (a) $0.075 for each contract in excess of 74,999 contracts; and (b) $0.025 for each contract in excess of 99,999 contracts, for Manual executions in IWM transacted during the month. As is the case today, Customers will not be charged for Manual transactions in IWM.

    The Exchange notes that Strategy Executions, Firm Facilitation and Qualified Contingent Crosses are excluded from the proposed fee change and would not count towards calculations of the total monthly Manual transactions in IWM. Further, after calculating fees associated with Manual transactions in IWM, at the end of the month, the Exchange will round to the nearest penny when applicable.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,5 in particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.

    4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    Overall, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to IWM pricing for Manual transactions are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the reduced rates are based on the executions in IWM transacted on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fees are designed to incentivize IWM Participants to conduct Manual trades in IWM and apply equally to all IWM Participants. The Exchange believes the proposed fee changes may result in an increase in volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which would provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads, to the benefit of all market participants even non-IWM Participants, all of which perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and national market system.

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,6 the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed fees associated with IWM are pro-competitive as they may attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange through the proposed reduced rates, which would benefit all Excha